Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSE-HOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:

I have received your Address praying that the International Tin Council (Immunities and Privileges) Order, 1961, be made in the form of the draft laid before your House.

I will comply with your request.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

PORT OF LONDON BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

FORTH ROAD BRIDGE ORDER CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL

Considered in Committee.

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Preamble agreed to.

Bill to be reported.

Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time upon Monday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Bookmakers (Permits)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for bookmakers' permits and betting agency permits have now been received by justices; how many have been granted and how many refused; and whether he is satisfied with the progress of this new procedure.

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many bookmakers' licences and betting office permits had been granted at 1st May, 1961.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Dennis Vosper): I would refer to the Answer given on 15th June to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance).

Mr. Digby: Can my right hon. Friend say whether there is any truth in the allegations that some of these permits have been unreasonably refused, or is that not the case?

Mr. Vosper: Such inquiries as I have been able to make suggest that the scheme is working smoothly. There have been difficulties in occasional places, but they have been only very few.

Mr. Chetwynd: Has not the right hon. Gentleman called for a return of these figures and can he say when the evidence will be available? Can he also explain how it is that the Secretary of State for Scotland is already able to give these figures while we are lagging behind? Can he say what is the impact on the general pattern of betting?

Mr. Vosper: I should need notice of the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. With regard to the first part, our licensing period ended on 31st May and licensing authorities have been asked to send in their returns by 31st July.

Radio Paging System (Metropolitan Police Force)

Mr. Holland: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his tests of the new radio paging systems


are complete; and if it is the intention to adopt them for the Metropolitan Police Force.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): Tests of such a system for use by the fire service are about to start. But my right hon. Friend is advised that this system would not be appropriate for police purposes, and alternative methods of meeting police requirements are under examination.

Mr. Holland: Does not my hon. and learned Friend realise that this paging system offers the greatest advance in policing effectiveness since his right hon. Friend's illustrious predecessor, Sir Robert Peel, first put the "bobby" on the beat? Does not he realise that any unnecessary delay in granting Home Office approval may well lose for our manufacturers the world lead which they have in the development of this system, with consequential detrimental effects on export potential?

Mr. Renton: We are hoping for a better system for the police, and experiments with pocket wireless receivers are being put in hand this year.

Anti-Apartheid Movement (Marchers)

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what grounds restrictions were placed on marchers past South Africa House and the residence of the South African High Commissioner, planned by the Anti-Apartheid Movement, on 28th May, 1961.

Mr. Renton: I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that the organisers of this march were warned that they would not be allowed to carry out their original plans because it was considered that serious public disorder might have been caused.

Mr. Brockway: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman consider this as a point of psychology? Is he aware that the organisers called off these marches because trey feared that the restrictions would lead to disorder? Is he further aware that, when the marchers were allowed to pass South Africa House, there was no violence whatever, and that violence is created only when crowds have a sense of frustration by being kept

in side streets? Will he look at this from the point of view of psychology?

Mr. Renton: These are factors which the Commissioner of Police bears in mind, but there have been disorders at earlier demonstrations. It is the duty of the police to take steps to preserve public order, and they have a special duty to protect diplomatic premises.

Domestic Fire Extinguishers

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of the tests of domestic fire extinguishers, recently conducted by the Consumer Advisory Council, which have shown that many of these extinguishers are defective; and what steps he is taking to ensure that manufacturers improve the standards of such extinguishers, and to warn the public generally that many of those now on the market, and in private homes, are undependable and dangerous.

Mr. Renton: My right hon. Friend has seen a report of the tests. His responsibilities do not extend to regulating the standards of performance of fire extinguishers placed on sale to the public. Advice on suitable types of extinguishers is given by local fire authorities on request, and I understand that the Fire Protection Association is shortly to issue a pamphlet of guidance on this matter.

Mr. Driberg: If the hon. and learned Gentleman is, to some extent, repudiating responsibility for this matter, will he recall the perhaps comparable case of the paraffin heaters, in which, after lives had been lost, the Government did accept responsibility, even though private manufacturers were concerned? Will he look at this matter again and take a slightly more positive attitude than he has in his Answer?

Mr. Renton: The Consumer Protection Bill will enable my right hon. Friend to make regulations laying down safety requirements, and to that extent there will be an advance on the present position. Suitable extinguishers of all types are on a list of appliances approved by the Fire Offices Committee.

Miss Bacon: Is not the hon. and learned Gentleman responsible for many aspects of safety? As my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg)


has said, why, if the Home Secretary was responsible to some extent for taking action on oil heaters, has he no power in this matter?

Mr. Renton: It simply is a fact that my right hon. Friend has no power, but he was glad to support the Consumer Protection Bill.

Mrs. Slater: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman consider recommending to his right hon. Friend that power should be taken and regulations laid under the Consumer Protection Bill?

Mr. Renton: That will be a matter for consideration when the Bill has passed into law.

Immigration from the Commonwealth

Sir C. Osborne: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many immigrants from the Commonwealth came to the United Kingdom during the first five months of 1961; what was the corresponding figure for each of the previous five years; from what countries principally they came; how they compare with the previous five years; and whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the Government's intentions to control this immigration.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT such figures as are available. I have no further statement to make at present on the question of controlling immigration from the Commonwealth.

—
Estimated net inward movement during the first five months of


1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961


West Indies
…
12,700
5,500
7,800
1,700
14,800
26,000


East Africa
…
350
250
200
15
−60
650


West Africa
…
500
525
250
nil
−425
900


Cyprus
…
825
425
65
−200
825
1,800


Gibraltar
…
80
nil
−75
−150
−75
−175


Malta
…
275
200
80
−175
−250
225


Aden
…
525
nil
15
275
60
75


Hong Kong
…
75
300
70
300
350
600


Malaya
…
275
175
325
225
−200
nil


Singapore
…
75
90
−110
10
−30
275


India
…
2,650
2,200
3,300
1,300
2,000
6,700


Pakistan
…
800
1,200
4,200
−175
−125
6,000


Ceylon
…
250
250
100
−10
−225
125


NOTES:


1. A minus sign denotes a net outward movement.


2. Figures are not available in respect of other Commonwealth countries.

Sir C. Osborne: Does my right hon. Friend recall that in a Written Answer on Tuesday, which I had not seen when I put down this Question, it was stated that the number of immigrants from India and Pakistan in the first five months of this year was more than 13,000, compared with less than 2,000 last year? Does not this suggest that the voluntary agreement controlling immigration, exercised by the Governments of India and Pakistan, has broken down? Are Her Majesty's Government going to do nothing about this new danger to our country?

Mr. Butler: If my hon. Friend will study the figures which I have published, he will see that they approximate to those which he has mentioned in relation to India and Pakistan. All these matters are under consideration by the Government.

Mr. John Hall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, by percentage of population, High Wycombe has one of the greatest concentrations of coloured immigrants in the country? Although we welcome very much this accession to our labour requirements, this is giving rise to considerable housing and social problems, which are due almost entirely to the rate at which immigrants are coming in. Should not we at least do something to control the rate?

Mr. Butler: My hon. Friend has been to see me about this problem. I am well aware of it, and it is under consideration.

Following are the figures:

Sir C. Osborne: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now give an estimate of the number of coloured immigrants which the United Kingdom can safely absorb; in view of the high birth rate amongst coloured immigrants, how soon he proposes to introduce legislation to control immigration; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. N. Pannell: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what legislation is now contemplated to check the inflow of immigrants from the Commonwealth; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The whole matter is under consideration by the Government but I am not in a position at the moment to add anything to previous Answers on this subject.

Sir C. Osborne: My right hon. Friend says again that this is under consideration. Is he aware that he has been giving me that answer for the last five years? Did he see the most temperate and reasonable editorial in the Daily Telegraph on Monday, which suggested that action was not being taken because of fear of opinion in the West Indies? How long is it to be that the West Indian opinion of 3 million people should override the opinion of this nation of 52 million people?

Mr. Butler: I read that article with profit, but I have nothing to add at the present time.

Mr. N. Pannell: In view of the fact that in the first five months of this year, 41,000 immigrants have arrived from the West Indies, Pakistan, India and Cyprus, compared with 17,000 in the same period last year, does not my right hon. Friend consider that urgent action is necessary? Is there any reason why he should give a hint of the Government's intentions to the annual conference of the Conservative and Unionist Teachers' Association, and deny any information to this House on the matter?

Mr. Butler: I did not go further on that occasion than to suggest—as I do now—that the matter is under consideration. It is under consideration, and, as I have often told the House, we are trying to look at it without prejudice.

Miss Bacon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us deprecate the emphasis which is put by some Members opposite on coloured immigrants? Is he aware that the coloured immigrants are not the only immigrants among whom there is a high birth rate?

Mr. Butler: Yes. The proportion of coloured immigrants is only about 50 per cent. of the total.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Sir C. Osborne: On a point of order Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.]—when the black claquers are finished—in view of the unsatisfactory nature of that Answer, I shall, with your permission, seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of extra migrants who have arrived from the West Indies in the first five months of 1961 as a result of advocacy of restrictions and uncertainty as to whether free migration will continue to be allowed.

Mr. Renton: No such estimate is possible.

Mr. Chapman: Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that many of us on this side of the House have kept very quiet under intense provocation, knowing that unfortunate speeches here fill a boatload or planeload every time in Jamaica and make matters worse? Would not it be better to have a quiet period for consideration? If we are to have a moratorium on speeches, would not it be a good thing if the Home Secretary were to be more careful? Does he realise the immense harm done by his speech at the weekend when he talked about the solution of the British Government not being based on colour prejudice alone? For heaven's sake will somebody explain what the right hon. Gentleman meant by that instead of allowing this harm to go on?

Mr. Renton: This Question raises a matter the answer to which can only be anybody's guess. There is no power to question immigrants as to why they are coming here, or why they have chosen any particular time to come here.

Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he has given to the statements made by the Prime Minister of Jamaica, shortly after his arrival in the United Kingdom, that any restriction of immigration into this country from the Commonwealth would be strongly resented in the West Indies; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which I gave on 15th June to Questions by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell) and the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. C. Royle).

Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is rather infuriating that Prime Ministers from other Commonwealth countries come here and lecture us publicly on how to run the country? Would he also agree that Mr. Manley's remarks, when considered in conjunction with the statement reported to have been made by Sir Grantley Adams yesterday, mean that the policy of controlling immigration into this country by consultation and cooperation with other Commonwealth countries has completely broken down?

Mr. Butler: I would rather not make comments on these speeches, although I will say that they have been carefully noted.

Mr. Fletcher: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what he meant in his speech at the weekend? Was it intended to be some advance indication of legislation by Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. Speaker: Order. How can that arise on this Question? I do not follow.

Mr. S. Silverman: Would not it be a little odd if the Government were to introduce new restrictions on immigration from the Commonwealth at a moment when the Foreign Secretary has made a speech in another place saying that we have no option but to enter into an arrangement in Europe which would open the flood gates to immigration without control into this country from every country in Europe?

Mr. Butler: I could not accept literally the words in the mouth of the hon. Gentleman because the Treaty of Rome

is not literally without controls, but it would be a very good thing for the House to realise that these considerations very much complicate this issue.

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that, under legislation now before the United States Congress, the West Indies, after independence, will have the right for its citizens, on terms of equality with other independent central and South American States, of free entry into the United States of America without quota restriction; and, since this legislation will alter the whole pattern of migration from the West Indies, whether he will give an assurance that no restriction will be placed on West Indian migration to Great Britain while this legislation is pending.

Mr. C. Royle: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been drawn to legislation now being considered in the United States Congress which would give free entry to West Indians on the achievement of independence; and, in view of the responsibilities of Her Majesty's Government for the rights of citizens of Commonwealth countries administered by them, if he will, while this legislation is pending, give an assurance that free entry to the United Kingdom for West Indians will be maintained.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have already indicated that there is no question of legislation on this subject in the present Session of Parliament.

Mr. Chapman: Is not that Answer very incomplete? Does the right hon. Gentleman, first, confirm that this legislation is before Congress, and that, under the McCarron Act, the independent States of Central and South America have the right of free access, without a quota of immigrants, to the United States? Does he not further confirm that it is very likely, to put it at its lowest, that the United States will wish to apply this to the newly-independent West Indies Federation? If this is so, have we any cause whatever—particularly bearing in mind that practically all these West Indians here are now working—to be rushed into panic measures of restriction as proposed by his hon. Friend?

Mr. Butler: I do not think it can honestly be said that there has been any disposition to rush into panic measures. The fact that certain members of the United States Congress have introduced Bills which will affect the position of West Indians under United States immigration quotas has been brought to my attention. I cannot speculate on how these Bills will get on, or on the hypothetical situation which may arise out of them. I will only say that they have been brought to my attention.

Mr. Royle: If the United States, which has no responsibility for Commonwealth countries, is prepared to consider opening its doors to West Indian immigrants, is it not absolutely monstrous that we in this country should even be using the word "consider" in relation to migration from the West Indies? Have we not got a much deeper responsibility, and will the right hon. Gentleman cease any form of pandering to this anti-Commonwealth attitude of some of his hon. Friends.

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I think that that is really an exaggeration of the position. We cannot tell what will happen or what the fate of this legislation in the United States Congress will be. Secondly, we must consider our own domestic situation in the light of what presents to all of us, whatever our feelings, a very serious problem, and that is precisely what we are doing without any sense of panic or rush.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in the Congress of the United States, as here, there is a great gap between a Bill and an Act, and that this matter of immigration into the United Kingdom is now becoming extremely urgent because of the rapid and progressive growth of the numbers coming in in this way?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend's language rings a bell in relation to our own programme.

Mr. Fletcher: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether his Answer to the original Question means that he is contemplating legislation in the next Session?

Sir C. Osborne: Of course, he is.

Mr. Butler: I have said already—I think three times at Question Time this afternoon—that this is a serious matter now under consideration by the Government, and it is well-known that it is under consideration. I cannot carry it any further today.

Police (Insurance)

Mr. F. Harris: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if provision is made to insure policemen and policewomen against loss of life while on duty.

Mr. Renton: No, Sir, not from public funds. The Police Pensions Regulations provide for special pensions to be payable to the dependants of officers who die as a result of injury received in the execution of their duty.

Mr. Harris: Would my hon. and learned Friend consider asking the Home Secretary to make a strong recommendation that the personnel of police forces throughout the country should be so insured for life, because the cost would be quite infinitesimal? When tragedies occurred, this would at least ease the financial burden sustained by wives and families of police officers and such a suggestion would receive the support both of the people and of this House.

Mr. Renton: No, Sir. We feel that the right way to deal with this matter—which obviously does need to be dealt with, and has been dealt with for many years—is to make sure that there are adequate benefits under the Police Pensions Regulations, which are approved by the Police Council. The current arrangements appear to give general satisfaction and are considered to be adequate.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there is no feeling of satisfaction about the adequacy of the pensions of police widows, and that in West Ham in particular, which was the scene of the recent tragedy, there is a great feeling of indignation about the inadequacy of these pensions? Can he say what pension is payable to the widow of the shot police inspector?

Mr. Renton: Each of the two widows whose husbands were shot the other day


receives total pensions and benefits exceeding £10 a week.

Mr. Harris: In view of the most unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Traffic Wardens (Police Whistles)

Mr. Clive Bossom: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider issuing traffic wardens with a police whistle for use in emergencies, such as in cases of personal assault, when witnessing smash and grab raids, and for other similar occurrences.

Mr. Renton: As far as the Metropolitan Police District is concerned, I will certainly bring this suggestion to the notice of the Commissioner.

Mr. Bossom: While thanking my hon. and learned Friend for that encouraging reply, may I ask him if he is aware of the growing concern amongst traffic wardens about their conditions of service? In the last few weeks, there have been several bad cases of assault. These men do a police job with very little protection in law. Could not there be a better link in emergency between the traffic wardens and the police, especially when meters start in October in Soho?

Mr. Renton: Although tens of thousands of standard penalty notices have been issued since the scheme began, the number of wardens assaulted in the Metropolitan Police District so far has been only seven. I will, of course, bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.

Unemployment, Northern Ireland

Mr. A. Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps Her Majesty's Government now proposes to take to assist the Government of Northern Ireland to arrest the rising unemployment in Northern Ireland.

Mr. R. A. Butler: As indicated in the Answers that I gave to the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Oram) on 23rd March and to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Sir D. Campbell) on 4th May, a joint study group appointed by the United Kingdom

and Northern Ireland Governments is considering what measures can be taken to bring about a lasting improvement.

Mr. Roberts: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the high unemployment figure in Northern Ireland has existed for quite a long time? Whether one's constituency is adjacent to Northern Ireland or not, there is general concern that, whereas in some districts there is over-employment, in Northern Ireland there has been a pretty high rate of unemployment for a considerable time. Does not the Minister appreciate that something more fundamental should be done to give them something like the average which has appertained throughout England and parts of Scotland?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir; every endeavour will be made. There are special conditions in Northern Ireland which make the situation very difficult to deal with. It has been discussed with the Northern Ireland Government and with hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies. I am hoping that with the agreement of the Northern Ireland Government this study group will do some good.

Mr. Popplewell: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he hopes to receive a report from the study group? This problem has existed for a long time. There is considerable feeling about it, and many of us have received representations. When does the right hon. Gentleman hope to receive a reply?

Mr. Butler: I hope that it will not necessarily be a final report, but that we shall receive reports from time to time. I hope that it will be a continuing process to keep us informed. [An HON. MEMBER: "When will the report be ready?"] I shall have to look into that and ask the chairman, but I hope to keep the House informed of progress.

Sir D. Campbell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my Ulster colleagues and I welcome the assistance given by the Government to the Northern Ireland Government to help solve the unemployment problem, and in particular their efforts to relieve employers in Ulster of the payroll tax if it should be introduced? Will my right hon. Friend impress on the working party—that is, the Brittain


Committee—the need for urgency in submitting its recommendations, particularly with regard to our shipbuilding industry?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. I am glad to make an affirmative answer, and to thank my hon. Friend for his tributes to what we have attempted to do. As a proof of that, last year we achieved the highest level of employment ever in Northern Ireland. There has since been a deterioration due to the shipbuilding situation. This is common to other parts of the country, but it is especially severe in Northern Ireland, and I will pay attention to what my hon. Friend said.

Approved Schools (Housemasters)

Mr. Boyden: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in view of the shortage of well-qualified housemasters in the approved school service and their limited opportunities for promotion, he will arrange for suitable housemasters to attend professional courses on full pay and with course expenses provided.

Mr. Vosper: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend has invited managers of approved schools to recommend suitable housemasters for secondment on full salary to attend courses which are being organised for or are open to them. Tuition fees and travelling expenses will be met from public funds.

Mr. Boyden: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that they are to be on full pay as well? If they are, how many housemasters are likely to be involved in this scheme?

Mr. Vosper: Certainly they will be on full pay, and they will get their expenses and tuition fees in addition. I cannot give the number involved, but we are starting two additional courses, with the hope of a fourth, so the numbers will be fairly considerable.

Miss Bacon: Is not one of the reasons why there is difficulty in getting staff for approved schools that in most of the schools the staffs realise that they are working only for a local committee and not for a local authority, and that therefore there are no chances of promotion?

Mr. Vosper: That differs from my experience in visiting approved schools.

Cruelty to Children

Mr. Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the growing number of cases of cruelty to children, he will introduce legislation to increase the penalties for this type of offence.

Mr. Vosper: The law relating to the prevention of cruelty to children was among the subjects considered by the Ingleby Committee, which recommended an increase from £25 to £100 in the maximum fine that may be imposed on summary conviction of an offence under Section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933. The Committee's recommendations are under consideration, but I cannot yet say when it will be possible to introduce legislation.

Mr. Lipton: That does not take us very far. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as in the revolting case of the man who blinded his six months' old child for life and received a trivial sentence of six months, the public are staggered by such leniency? Why are such vile cases dealt with in a petty way by petty courts, when, for example, for maiming cattle a prison sentence of up to fourteen years can be imposed? Is not the law far too kind to these brutal and sub-human men?

Mr. Vosper: The maximum penalties on conviction on indictment are a fine of £100 or two years' imprisonment, or both. On summary conviction the penalty is a fine of £25, which it is proposed to increase, or six months, or both. The Ingleby Committee made only one recommendation, having reviewed this very thoroughly.

Mr. Lindsay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that recently we were all shocked by the case of a child of six months who was blinded for life by a beating from his father, and that the maximum punishment was six months' imprisonment? Surely that is quite out of proportion, and legislation should be introduced to deal with this sort of case?

Mr. Vosper: I can but note what my hon. Friend said.

Mr. Iremonger: Is my hon. Friend aware that this case received seven years in a higher court in the last day or so?

Mr. Lipton: Not this case.
In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I propose to go on and on and give the Government no peace until they do something about this.

Betting Levy Act, 1961

Mr. McAdden: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give an assurance that, when giving his approval under Section 2 of the Betting Levy Act, 1961, to any scheme for the distribution by the Horserace Betting Levy Board of moneys levied under this Act, he will ensure that no such moneys are paid to the proprietors of any racecourse from any of the enclosures of which persons are debarred by reason only of the nature of their business or profession.

Mr. Renton: Before considering this matter my right hon. Friend would wish to know the views of the Levy Board and others concerned.

Mr. McAdden: I appreciate that my hon. and learned Friend wants the views of the Levy Board. Does he not think that it is slightly ridiculous that he should have taken powers to levy a payment on off-course bookmakers to support racecourses and to improve amenities and at the same time deny them the opportunity of enjoying the amenities which their money helps to provide?

Mr. Renton: This question will arise perhaps next year when the Levy Board submits a scheme, but until then, with respect to my hon. Friend, the question is premature.

Sir H. Oakshott: Can my hon. and learned Friend tell the House how he is getting on with the Levy Board, and when it will start its work?

Mr. Renton: That is an entirely different matter. It is right outside the question.

Remand Homes

Mrs. Hill: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of the continuing shortage of places in remand homes and the undesirable alternative of remanding persons in prison or police stations when it is necessary to retain them under supervision; and what further progress is being made

to provide additional places in remand homes.

Mr. Vosper: It is only lawful to remand a young person over 14 to prison if he is too unruly or depraved for a remand home and police stations are not used for remand except where the difficulty of an overnight journey to the remand home makes it unavoidable. My right hon. Friend is very much aware of the shortage of places in remand homes and replies to Questions by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) on 15th June and the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) on 13th April indicated what is being done to relieve the pressure on the remand homes.

Mrs. Hill: Is the Home Secretary aware that a fortnight ago there was only one remand home vacancy in the whole of the country, and that the person involved in the case before the magistrates at the time could not be sent there because it was not a suitable one? Is not the Minister able to do anything, even as a temporary measure, until this peak is passed?

Mr. Vosper: I am very much aware of this problem, especially as it exists in north-west England. I am not unhopeful that the authority which my hon. Friend represents may be able to help us in this respect.

Miss Bacon: Is not the Minister aware that it is not only the north-west of England but the whole of the north of England which is concerned? Children's officers sometimes spend hours on the telephone trying to get places, and sometimes the only place available is as far away as Taunton or Plymouth. In future could not there be some modification of the financial arrangements, so that local authorities were not required to pay quite as much towards the provision of remand homes?

Mr. Vosper: I am aware of the situation referred to in the first part of the hon. Lady's supplementary question. As for financial arrangements, she has a later Question on the Order Paper, but they are not necessarily the only factor which causes difficulty.

Mr. Lagden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the position at the moment is so bad that many magistrates are


informed by the clerks of their courts before they hear cases that it will be quite useless to send people to remand homes, because no places exist. Is it not a farcical situation that magistrates should sit in judgment on people knowing full well that they cannot administer the necessary punishment?

Mr. Vosper: I fully accept what my hon. Friend says. This is a serious position, which arises in part from a shortage of places at approved schools. We are taking emergency measures to find extra remand accommodation.

Firearms

Mr. Speir: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has vet concluded his consultations with the Secretary of State for Scotland, regarding the desirability of instituting an amnesty for the surrender of firearms; and whether he has any other special proposals to make for restoring law and order and combating crimes of violence.

Mr. Renton: My right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to make a statement on this subject. As regards the second part of the Question, the Government are doing all they can, by the strengthening of the police service and in many other ways, to deal with the incidence of crime. My right hon. Friend will be glad to consider any particular points my hon. Friend may have in mind.

Mr. Speir: Does my hon. and learned Friend realise that that is not a very satisfactory Answer? Is it not a fact that in pre-war days a number of amnesties were held from time to time, but that there has not been an amnesty held since 1946, on which occasion no less than 76,000 weapons were handed in? Is it not time for another amnesty, with teeth in it—an amnesty which would be followed by legislation being introduced to increase the penalty? At present the maximum penalty is three months' imprisonment for possessing a firearm without a licence.

Mr. Renton: As I have said, my right hon. Friend is considering the question of an amnesty. Indeed, I hope that it will not be long before he is in a position to say something further about it. As for legislation, I should like to consider that possibility.

Victims of Crimes of Violence (Compensation)

Mr. Prentice: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish the report of the working party which studied the question of compensation for victims of criminal assault; and whether he is now in a position to make a further statement of Government policy on this matter.

Mr. C. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has completed his examination of the report of the official working party on the question of compensation for victims of crimes of violence; and when he expects to make the terms of the report public.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I will, with permission, answer this Question and Question No. 27 together.
The report will be published shortly—I hope next week—with a preface giving some indication of the issues which arise.

Mr. Prentice: I welcome the statement that the report will be published this week. Can the right hon. Gentleman say what attitude the Government are taking about it? Is he aware that there will be a great deal of public disappointment if there is no Government legislation on the matter in the next Session? This situation has existed for a long time, and the longer the delay the greater the number of people who will be injured without compensation being available.

Mr. Butler: This is a complicated subject. If the report is read it will be seen how complicated it is, and how important it is to get public reaction—because the cost would fall on the public. I am hoping, by publishing the report, to get the public's reaction.

Mr. McAdden: Why should my right hon. Friend, in reply to Question No. 29, also seek to answer Question No. 27, which was called by you, Mr. Speaker, but not asked? Is not this a waste of time?

Mr. Speaker: I did not call Question No. 27. I called the name of the hon. Member who had his name to that Question and who, had he been here, might have asked it.

Motor Vehicles (Emission of Fumes)

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Deportment how many offences, cautions and summonses were registered during 1960 under the Motor Vehicles Regulations relating to emission of fumes.

Mr. Renton: In England and Wales during 1960, 1,875 offences against Regulation 79 of the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations, 1955, were dealt with by prosecution. The police gave 406 written warnings in respect of alleged offences. No record is kept of the number of oral warnings issued.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the hon. and learned Member draw the attention of the Home Secretary to the fact that over ninety coal lorries per hour pass through the County Borough of Derby, and practically all of them commit an offence every day?

Mr. Renton: I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman draws these facts to the attention of the chief constable.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Can the Minister say how many of these cases related to alcoholic fumes, and also how he distinguishes one fume from another?

Mr. Renton: The Question relates to diesel fumes.

Protection of Animals Act (Penalties)

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in view of recent cases of the killing and maiming of horses by gangs of youths, he will introduce legislation to increase the penalties for such offences.

Mr. Vosper: The maximum penalty for an offence against the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, is a fine of £50 or imprisonment for three months or both. My right hon. Friend has no reason to think that this is not adequate.

Mr. Henderson: Is the Minister aware that according to Press reports ten horses have been killed or so badly injured—mostly by gangs of youths—that they had to be destroyed, during the past six months? Is not this a deplorable state of affairs, and cannot some action be taken about it?

Mr. Vosper: I have seen these Press reports but it seems that the authorities have not been able to prosecute so far, and my right hon. Friend cannot comment on that state of affairs.

Mr. E. Johnson: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that many people think that the penalties involved are grossly inadequate, and that these are the sort of cases where corporal punishment might be given with advantage?

Mr. Vosper: I note what my hon. Friend says.

Detained Persons (Searches)

Mr. Burden: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will authorise the Metropolitan Police to search persons detained at police stations on suspicion of violence before they are charged.

Mr. Renton: It is already the practice in the Metropolitan Police force for any person who is to be detained in a police station to be searched.

Mr. Burden: That does not quite answer my Question. Will my hon. and learned Friend say whether there is power to search before a person is charged? If so, it appears that many station officers are reluctant to carry out a search before a person is charged. If people who are believed to be violent were searched before being charged, would it not prevent the occurrence of events such as have happened recently?

Mr. Renton: The point is that under the common law there is power to search an individual who has been arrested, and it is the practice of the Metropolitan Police to do this.

Mr. Burden: With great respect, that is when he has been arrested. Can my hon. and learned Friend say whether there is a difference between being arrested and being detained for questioning? That is the whole point of my Question.

Mr. Renton: Quite clearly there is a difference. The police exercise their right of search in the case of those who are to be detained.

Crime (Night Courts)

Mr. Montgomery: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will have an inquiry into the advisability of setting up night magistrates courts in all big cities to see whether they could be of assistance to the police in dealing with night crime.

Mr. Vosper: My right hon. Friend has no information to show that such an inquiry is desirable.

Mr. Montgomery: Is not my right hon. Friend aware of the great concern felt in this country about the increase in crime? Is the Home Office doing anything at all to help the police in their fight against crime? I realise that this would mean extra work for magistrates, and that their co-operation would be required, but it is an idea worth looking at. Will my right hon. Friend consider it?

Mr. Vosper: I will certainly do that, but I have no indication that representations have been made by the police authorities to this effect. The question was considered by the Royal Commission on Justices of the Peace in 1948, but rejected. If my hon. Friend cares to get in touch with me, I should like to hear what he has to say about it.

Mr. C. Royle: If magistrates' courts were held in the evenings, would not many police be in the courts instead of on the streets, trying to detect crime?

Mr. Vosper: My hon. Friend has in mind night courts and not evening courts.

Alfred George Hinds

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he intends to take in respect of the sworn declaration by William Frederick Nicholls that, in the robbery for which he was convicted, Alfred George Hinds was not in any way connected and is innocent, in view of the fact that Hinds is serving a sentence of twelve years detention on being convicted of being implicated in the crime.

Mr. R. A. Butler: None, Sir. The declaration that Hinds is innocent does not accord with the statement made by Mr. Nicholls earlier this year to two senior police officers.

Mr. Sorensen: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that this statement, made on oath by the man Nicholls, deserves examination, and that if it is perjury, surely some action should be taken against him? If, on the other hand, he made the statement, apparently without any hope of material gain, it deserves much more serious attention than is being given to it at the present time.

Mr. Butler: The question of perjury or anything of that sort is a matter for the police and the prosecuting authority, and one on which I cannot comment. I have given the hon. Gentleman the only answer I can give.

Mr. S. Silverman: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that at Hinds' original trial, the Lord Chief Justice, who presided over the trial, described this man Nicholls as the principal offender in this case, and, therefore, he knows better than anyone who his accomplices were? is he further aware that Hinds has protested his innocence at the time and ever since, that he has escaped from prison several times in order to assert it, and that the principal police officer who was concerned in his prosecution has now retired from the police force and is getting richer emoluments elsewhere? Does he not think that all this amounts to a case for a new inquiry in case a miscarriage of justice has occurred?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I will consider anything that the hon. Gentleman gives me to consider, and we had better leave it there. On the present evidence I have, I think I cannot carry it any further.

Mr. Sorensen: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he intends to give me a fuller reply by correspondence, in addition to what he has said today?

Mr. Butler: If it would help the hon. Gentleman, I will certainly do so, or I will see him if he so desires.

Detention Centres (Young Offenders)

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has as yet any evidence as to the effectiveness as a form of punishment of detention centres for young offenders.

Mr. Vosper: At the end of last year, out of over 3,600 boys released in 1957, 1958 and 1959, 55 per cent. had not been reconvicted. Of those who were first offenders when sentenced to detention, 74 per cent. had not been reconvicted.

Mr. Johnson: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether there are any plans to greatly speed up the building and provision of more of these detention centres?

Mr. Vosper: Yes, Sir. Three have been opened this year, and it is hoped to open two more in September, including one in the area which my hon. Friend represents.

Miss Bacon: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what are his intentions with regard to the girls who are placed in custody for less than six months? Is it the Government's intention to have girls' detention centres, or are other provisions being made?

Mr. Vosper: It is the present intention to provide a girls' detention centre in Staffordshire, though the proposals for it have not been completely finalised.

Oral Answers to Questions — GENEVA CONFERENCE ON NUCLEAR TESTS

Mr. Healey: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the difficulties encountered in the Geneva negotiations, he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy concerning a ban on nuclear tests.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I regret to say that there has been no progress in the Conference in recent weeks. Discussion has continued in the Conference on the points raised in the Soviet Aide Memoire which Mr. Khrushchev gave to President Kennedy in Vienna. The House will now have seen the United States reply which was published on 17th June. I think this reply states the Western position clearly.
We have been trying for two and a half years to play our full part in bringing this Conference to a successful conclusion and we shall continue to do so. We are deeply discouraged that the Soviet Government seem bent on creating fresh difficulties, while we were

putting forward constructive new proposals to overcome the existing points of difference. We hope they will consider carefully the arguments the United States Government have now put to them, and which have our full support.

Mr. Healey: While fully sharing the regrets and hopes expressed by the Prime Minister, may I ask him, in view of the fact that world opinion rightly blames the Soviet Government for the deadlock in the Geneva talks, to which he referred, and in view of Mr. Khrushchev's threat to resume Soviet nuclear testing if any Western Power resumes testing, whether he would agree that it would be regrettable if any Western Power blurred the issue by being the first to resume tests at this time? In particular, can he give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government have no such intention?

The Prime Minister: This question looms ahead, but I am happy to say that it is our intention, and that of the United States Government, to continue the Conference and keep it in being in the hope that a better turn of affairs may come.

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Prime Minister a question on the relationship of this Conference to the forthcoming discussions on general disarmament? If, as unfortunately appears to be the case, there is no likelihood in the near future of the Soviet Union agreeing to any kind of agreement which the West could accept, nevertheless, is it still the view of the Government that the question of nuclear tests should not be included in the discussions on general disarmament?

The Prime Minister: I do not honestly think that, in all the enormous problem of disarmament, on the necessarily detailed complexities, it would help to get the nuclear tests question settled rapidly if it were put, as the Russians now suggest, into the general disarmament discussions. I fear very much that it would get lost there, rather than make progress. However, that is the situation. The Conference has not been brought to an end, and we must hope that progress will in due course be made.

Mr. A. Henderson: May we take it from the reply of the Prime Minister that it is not the intention, either of


Her Majesty's Government or the United States Government, to resume nuclear tests so long as the disarmament negotiations continue?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir; so long as the negotiations continue, what we may call the voluntary moratorium continues.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS (CHINA)

Mr. Healey: asked the Prime Minister to what extent it is Her Majesty's Government's policy to work for the seating of the Peking Government at the next session of the United Nations.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer given to the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal on 1st. May.

Mr. Healey: Really, this is not satisfactory. Does not the Prime Minister recall that it is now six months since the Secretary of State said that it was the view of Her Majesty's Government that Peking should be seated at the United Nations? Is not it urgently necessary for Her Majesty's Government to take the initiative in trying to secure a majority in the Assembly for such a thing, in order to ensure that the conditions of Peking's admission are generally acceptable to the bulk of the Western Powers?

The Prime Minister: That is a hypothetical question. This cannot arise until the autumn. I think that the hon. Gentleman will realise that this is a complicated matter involving a great number of difficult questions. That does not mean that we do not want to see them resolved, but we have to take into account the general world situation and what it may be in September or October of this year.

Mr. Healey: Surely, it is precisely because this is a complicated question involving a large number of difficult problems that it is urgently necessary for the Government to take the initiative in trying to organise talks among the parties concerned in such a decision, so that when the next session of the General Assembly does take place the Western Powers are not swept away into what

might be an unwise form of decision through failure to plan for this event?

The Prime Minister: It might be wise to take the initiative but I do not think that it would be right to take a public initiative.

Sir C. Osborne: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind, while recognising the immense difficulties internationally of getting agreement for Peking to be seated at the United Nations, that the people of China would rather have food, oil and machinery than a seat at the United Nations?

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Will the Prime Minister represent to President Kennedy that the British Commonwealth has at least as great an interest in Asia as the United States, and that the Governments of the Commonwealth are unanimous in thinking that it is dangerous to delay any longer in giving the Chinese Government its legal rights?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that it is part of my duty to represent the views of other Commonwealth countries. As I said, our views are well known.

Oral Answers to Questions — SECURITY (ROMER COMMITTEE'S REPORT)

Mr. Ginsburg: asked the Prime Minister whether he or his predecessor was at any time informed by the security service that Houghton, a probable security risk, was employed at the Underwater Detection Establishment.

The Prime Minister: With permission, I will answer this Question, together with Questions Nos. 43, 49, 50, 51 and 53 at the end of Questions.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEMBERS (BUSINESS AFFILIATIONS)

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: asked the Prime Minister if he will move for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the business affiliations of all hon. Members, and the payment of retainers and other fees to them for services to business interests, particularly in the field of advertising and public relations, with a view to making all such information readily and regularly available to the


public, and with a view to devising a scheme for providing from public funds working facilities to hon. Members sufficient to enable them properly to discharge their duties.

The Prime Minister: It is our tradition that a Member of Parliament must be free to conduct his personal affairs himself, subject to the accepted rules and conventions.

Mr. Noel-Baker: The Prime Minister can hardly be unaware that there is a serious and growing anxiety inside and outside Parliament about the payment of money by business interests to Members of Parliament for services which they can render only because they are Members of this House. Is he aware that these anxieties are shared by a number of his hon. Friends? Is he further aware that under present conditions it is impossible for an hon. Member to discharge his duties effectively and efficiently without outside money, which he needs in order to provide himself with the working facilities for so doing? Will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision and look at this whole matter again in an impartial and objective way?

The Prime Minister: I do not know what is meant by working facilities. I thought that you, Mr. Speaker, made a statement on 28th March, regarding the general facilities of the House and the problem of accommodation and so forth. I would rather leave that for the moment. With regard to the other question, I think it a matter, as I say, for the personal judgment of hon. Members. But no doubt, if there is this feeling, the fact that it has been ventilated will carry some weight with hon. Members in assessing their duties.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: In view of the fact that Members of Parliament get £1,750 a year which is supposed to be for attending the House of Commons, does not the Prime Minister think that there should be a better attendance in the House of Commons, and that the absenteeism has become a public scandal and a disgrace?

The Prime Minister: I do not think so.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Look at the Division figures.

The Prime Minister: There is a system called "pairing" which I should be very sorry to see come to an end. As I say, these are matters of taste and tradition and I should be very sorry to see a House of Commons which included no hon. Members with outside interests in work, functions and even responsibilities.

Mr. C. Pannell: Will the Prime Minister consider this matter against the rather fastidious standards of British public life? Does he not think that the standards are well maintained in this place and that this place is not a squalid place full of squalid people not attending to their duties—though there may be a few squalid people in it? Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that, though hon. Members are underpaid, this place is still not meanly esteemed, and if there is any inquiry at all, may not we have it to prove that the standards of British public life are still such that this is a place where one is still rather proud to be?

The Prime Minister: It was for the reason that, broadly, I share the sentiments that the hon. Member has expressed, that I answered the Question in the way in which I did.

Oral Answers to Questions — SALE OF ARMAMENTS (FOREIGN COUNTRIES)

Mr. Dugdale: asked the Prime Minister what directions he has given to the Service Departments and the Board of Trade with reference to the sale of armaments to foreign countries.

The Prime Minister: All proposed sales are examined by the Government Departments concerned and they are authorised only if they are in accordance with Her Maejsty's Government's policy.

Mr. Dugdale: Is the Prime Minister happy that Her Majesty's Government are willing to sell ships to Portugal at a moment when Africans are being driven out of their homes by fire in Angola and when Portuguese soldiers—brave Portuguese soldiers—are killing men, women and children? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the time has come for Her Majesty's Government to give a lead to other N.A.T.O. countries in withholding arms from Portugal so long as these conditions continue to exist in Angola?

The Prime Minister: The sale of these ships was negotiated some time ago. They are now in British yards and being refitted. I do not think that it would be right to cancel this contract. These ships assist the Portuguese Navy to meet its N.A.T.O. obligations.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Norwegian Government, which is also a member of N.A.T.O., has refused to sell arms and ammunition to the Portuguese Government because of what is happening in Angola? Would not it be a good thing if Her Majesty's Government were to follow suit?

The Prime Minister: I have referred to the case of these ships. I cannot see that they can have any great effect on the sad situation in Angola. I do not know what other armaments have been concerned.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Prime Minister aware that the consciences of Christian people in this country have been stirred very considerably and that they feel that those who hand the weapons to the people who use them are equally guilty of the crime which is committed by those who use the weapons?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that the existence of these ships will have any great effect on what the hon. Gentleman fears. Of course, we share the deep regret about the situation in Angola, but I do not think that it would be right to cancel the contract.

Mr. Callaghan: Is the Prime Minister aware that if he reads the Question he will see that it is about armaments? Does he know, apart from the sale of these frigates, that I was given an Answer last Monday by the President of the Board of Trade stating that he refused to stop the export of arms and ammunition to Portugal, as I specifically asked him to do, in the present situation where it is intended that they shall be used in Angola and Mozambique? Is he aware that that is the case, that I am giving him facts and that that is the Answer I received? May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will leave the question of the sale of the frigates on which he has concentrated and stop the sale of arms and ammunition?

The Prime Minister: If that question were put on the Order Paper, of course I should try to answer it—[HON. MEMBERS: "It was."]—I answered the general question. The Question is a general question—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—referring to the sale of armaments to any country in the world. I answered that in a form which is true—that proposed sales are governed by the Government Department concerned. Now, in the supplementary questions there has arisen the question of these warships with which I dealt. If a specific Question is put down about the sale of other kinds of arms to Portugal I will try to answer it.

Mr. Gaitskell: I do not think that the Prime Minister can have heard what my hon. Friend said. He pointed out that he had put down a Question, that he had asked a Question of the President of the Board of Trade, and that the President had refused to stop the sale of arms and ammunition to the Portuguese Government. Will the Prime Minister please countermand what the President said?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Hon. Members: What?

Mr. Gaitskell: In that case, are we to assume that the Prime Minister, in endorsing the sale of arms and ammunition to Portugal, is giving the support of Her Majesty's Government to what is happening in Angola? That is precisely what the world in general will assume.

The Prime Minister: I, of course, was not aware of the particular Question raised with the Board of Trade. If it is put to me I shall do my best to look into it again. I was asked in general terms haw we organise—and the right hon. Gentleman probably knows. There is an inter-Departmental committee in which all questions of sales to foreign countries are considered. Then the question about the sale of these frigates was brought in and I answered that question. My attention has been drawn to another point and I shall look at that.

Mr. W. Yates: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the sort of moral leadership that we are supposed to be showing was singularly lacking in that reply?

Mr. Dugdale: In view of the totally unsatisfactory nature of the Prime Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

SECURITY (ROMER COMMITTEE'S REPORT)

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. Ginsburg: asked the Prime Minister (1) whether he or his predecessor was at any time informed by the security service that Houghton, a probable security risk, was employed at the Underwater Detection Establishment; and
(2) whether he will give an assurance that he has taken immediate action to remedy the shortcomings in the security service, commented on in the last sentence of paragraph 6 of the summary of the main findings of the Romer Committee.

Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: asked the Prime Minister whether, as a result of the findings of the Romer Committee, the War Office and Air Ministry, in addition to the Admiralty, are taking immediate steps to review their internal security organisation and to impress on their staffs that in future security instructions must be obeyed.

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the public anxiety and disquiet consequent on the publication of the summary of the main findings of the Romer Committee on aspects of naval security; and what disciplinary measures he intends to take against all those responsible for the negligence exposed by the Committee.

Dr. Johnson: asked the Prime Minister whether he will issue a special exhortation to all members of the security service with a view to counteracting the general want of security-mindedness commented upon in the Romer Report.

Mr. G. Brown: asked the Prime Minister what action he proposes to take in consequence of the facts set out in paragraph 8 of the summary of the Romer Report.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): With permission, I will now answer Questions Nos. 42, 43, 49, 50, 51 and 53 together.
Before the Romer Committee reported, my noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty had set up a Committee to review the central organisation for security in the Admiralty. At the same time, he ordered an examination of the working of the security arrangements both at headquarters and in other establishments. These two examinations are still proceeding. The Admiralty is reviewing its arrangements for staff records in the light of the Romer Committee's criticism.
Disciplinary proceedings have been authorised in the case of the persons specifically blamed by the Romer Committee. But, in fairness to the House, I ought to say now that the Captain at the Underwater Detection Establishment at Portland retired from the Navy in 1958 and the former security officer at that establishment is a retired naval officer employed on contract. The security officer is at present suspended from duty. The junior civilian official was transferred to other employment under the Admiralty in May, 1960.
After the Lonsdale case, all the defence Departments reviewed their security arrangements. The findings of the Romer Committee are concerned with Admiralty organisation, but the other defence Departments will, of course, take them into account so far as they are relevant.
The Romer Committee did not make any general criticism of the security service. It criticised it for failing to press a particular inquiry to a positive conclusion. Action has been taken to reduce to a minimum the chance of such a failure occurring again.
The security service received no information until 1956 which cast doubt on Houghton's reliability. I was informed of the investigation into Houghton's activities carried out by the security service in 1960, shortly before its successful conclusion.

Mr. Ginsburg: Is not the Prime Minister aware that his reply still raises very big questions of Ministerial responsibility because, after all, he is the political head of the security service? Why was it that Houghton continued in


employment at Portland when the security service had received some kind of report as to his lack of reliability? Why did not the security service inform the right hon. Gentleman?

The Prime Minister: I think that that matter is dealt with in the summary of the Romer Committee's Report.

Mr. G. Brown: Is the Prime Minister aware that in paragraph 8 of the summary which he has circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT, the Romer Committee considered that, apart altogether from the incident in 1956, the Admiralty is to blame for the manner in which it discharged its responsibilities for security? In the light of that very flat and frank criticism, I ask the Prime Minister, does it not make nonsense of Ministerial responsibility if no Minister accepts the corollary of that and resigns? Should not the First Lord of the Admiralty have done that? Is it not altogether indecent to keep telling us what has happened to a couple of junior officers when the Minister responsible for the Department stays in office?

The Prime Minister: I think that the doctrine of Ministerial responsibility is well known. It is the ultimate responsibility, but under modern conditions it must be recognised that the Minister's duty is to carry out his task as efficiently as possible. In this particular case, my noble Friend the First Lord came into it fairly recently. Since the matter has been raised, I think that all those who know him well will not be surprised to learn that he did offer his resignation to me, but I came to the conclusion, after going carefully into it, that I did not think this was a case in which I would be right to submit his resignation to the Queen.

Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: While welcoming my right hon. Friend's review of the security arrangements in the other two defence Services, may I ask whether he could tell us that these reviews will also be pressed ahead as fast as possible, because it is not likely that the Navy is more inefficient in this respect than either the Army or the Air Force? Would he not agree that disclosures in the Portland case of laxity and inefficiency are so shocking that the general public is entitled to an assurance as soon as possible that the security

arrangements have been tightened up and will be properly implemented in all circumstances?

The Prime Minister: The procedures have been tightened up and that is the whole object of the exercise which is going on. There are two separate points. First, whether the existing procedures, through a failure of organisation, have been properly carried out, and a quite separate question which the Radcliffe Committee is looking at, whether those procedures are in themselves sufficient.

Dr. Johnson: Is there not a general lesson in this Report that we English are a simple-minded people who are easily deceived, that we live in the past, when wars were fought according to conventions, rules and protocol? As one who, like him, has Scottish crofter ancestors, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he will bring an element of Scottish shrewdness to the consideration of this matter?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that it is true of the security services in their general form in this case. Great tribute is paid to them by the Romer Committee. One incident was criticised, an important one, but only one. A great number of hon. Members on both sides of the House have considerable knowledge of these arrangements. I should say, in respect of some of the criticism which has been made, that, on the whole, the security services were remarkably efficient.

Mr. G. Brown: To return to the question of Ministerial responsibility, does not the Prime Minister consider that what is happening here, and the refusal of his right hon. Friend's offer, marks a very considerable deterioration in the standards which applied, for example, in the case of Lord Crathorne, when he was Minister of Agriculture, over the Critchel Down affair, when administration broke down, but was much less serious than this case? Will not the Prime Minister reconsider this matter? Does he realise that to the public outside, although there is sophistication here, this cover-up at the top will seem to be an alibi for doing nothing about it?

The Prime Minister: That last point is not true, and is not a deduction which


should be made. The Romer Committee Report has been sent to the Radcliffe Committee. When we get that, no doubt a considerable number of changes may have to be made. As I say, this has been a question not so much of a failure of procedures—that we do not know yet—but a failure to have a sufficiently good organisation, in some respects, to make them as good as they ought to have been.
I do not think that what I have said is a derogation from the customs carried out in the past. After thinking it over very carefully—and, of course, I knew that my noble Friend would act in this way—I have come to the conclusion, in view of the fact that many Boards of Admiralty were concerned because a long period has gone by, that it would not be wise to take out of his hands the tightening of the security arrangements. I think that he will do it well.

Captain Litchfield: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the First Lord has the fullest confidence of the Royal Navy?

The Prime Minister: I am quite sure that is so.

Mr. Gaitskell: Does not the Prime Minister agree that it is immensely important to preserve the political responsibility in matters of this kind? Would he not agree that here is a case where a Service Department is severely criticised by an impartial committee four want of security? Is it not clear that it is the responsibility of the political head of the Department, the First Lord, to prevent that kind of situation arising? In these circumstances, how can he defend his decision not to accept the resignation of the First Lord?

The Prime Minister: I think that the decision is right, and I hold by it. We recognise that we cannot avoid our responsibilities, but in modern conditions and this extremely complicated organisation it would not be reasonable to apply that principle in quite the same way. That was a special case. There is a general criticism of certain organisational methods employed in some of the Admiralty departments. I do not think that it would be right to visit that on the First Lord. Every Board of Admiralty for several years has been

dealing with this. It is much more efficient to apply our minds to putting it right, as I am sure we can.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate this subject now.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 26TH JUNE—Completion of the Committee stage and remaining stages of the Army and Air Force Bill.

TUESDAY, 27TH JUNE and WEDNESDAY, 28TH JUNE until seven o'clock on Wednesday, Report and Third Reading of the Housing Bill.

At seven o'clock, private Members' Motions will be considered.

Also, on Wednesday, we hope to obtain the Second Reading of the Crown Estate Bill and of the Suicide Bill [Lords]; and the Committee stage of any necessary Money Resolution.

THURSDAY, 29TH JUNE—Conclusion of the Committee stage and remaining stages of the North Atlantic Shipping Bill, which it is hoped to obtain by about seven o'clock.

Committee and remaining stages of the Human Tissue Bill.

Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill.

FRIDAY, 30TH JUNE—Consideration of the Motions to approve the Cereals Deficiency Payments and Protection of Guarantees Amendment Orders.

Second Reading of the Public Health Bill [Lords].

MONDAY, 3RD JULY—The proposed business will be to begin the Report stage of the Finance Bill.

Mr. Gaitskell: Will the right hon. Gentleman find time for an early debate on the deplorable events in Angola and the reasons why the Government chose this time to underline their friendship and


esteem for the Portuguese Government, and why the Government have carefully refrained from any criticism or condemnation of what the Portuguese Government are doing in Angola?

Mr. Butler: I will not enter into the merits of the case at present, but simply note the Opposition's request that this subject should he debated.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is it impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the business for next week and to enable us to have this debate quickly?

Mr. Butler: As far as I know I have had no previous notice of this request. As usual, the proposed business was sent to the Opposition. I do not think that it is possible to reconsider it at this stage.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Can my right hon. Friend give a date on which the House will take the Motion in his name on House of Lords reform? Is he aware that if the debate is not taken soon it will inevitably be regarded as an expedient to secure a Parliamentary result on the Wedgwood Benn case? Is there any reason why this joint Select Committee should not be set up and its members named before the court hearing the Election Petition has reached its decision?

[That it is expedient that a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament be appointed to consider, having regard among other things to the need to maintain an efficient Second Chamber,

(a) the composition of the House of Lords,
(b) whether any, and if so what, changes should be made in the rights of Peers and Peeresses in their own right in regard to eligibility to sit in either House of Parliament and to vote at Parliamentary elections; and whether any, and if so what, changes should be made in the law relating to the surrender of peerages, and
(c) whether it would be desirable to introduce the principle of remuneration for Members of the House of Lords, and if so subject to what conditions,

and to make recommendations.]

Mr. Butler: I cannot accept my noble Friend's reflections about the placing of the Motion on the Order Paper. As I

said last week, we have a great deal of important business to complete, and I cannot at the moment give a date for the submission of the Motion to the House.

Mr. Brockway: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to three Motions on the Order Paper dealing with Angola, one of them signed by a large number of hon. Members? In view of the mounting horror in this country about what is happening in Angola and the suggestion made yesterday by the Foreign Secretary of Norway that the West, and even N.A.T.O., should dissociate itself from the policy of Portugal, is it not time that the House had an opportunity to declare its opinion upon the matter?
[That this House, noting with grave disquiet the reports from Christian missionaries in Angola indicating forced labour and brutal ill-treatment of working people in that territory and being aware of threatened wholesale massacre in the near future, deplores the abstention by Her Majesty's Government from voting on the Security Council resolution on this subject and urges the recall of Her Majesty's Ambassador from Portugal until the Government of that land behaves in a more civilised manner.]
[That this House deeply regrets that Professor Veiga-Pires, who is 70 years of age, recovering from pneumonia and due shortly to retire from the position of lecturer and examiner at St. Antonio's Hospital, Oporto, and who, on the occasion of the recent visit of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to Portugal, endeavoured to make known to the Secretary of State the concern felt by himself and other Liberals and Democrats in Portugal over the denial of human rights to many persons both in Portugal and its overseas territories, was, after the Secretary of State left Portugal, arrested and imprisoned without charge or trial, and therefore calls on Her Majesty's Government to make representations to the Government of Portugal and urges that Professor Pires be released or brought to trial in accordance with the elementary principles of human rights.]
[That this House deplores the aggression by the Portuguese authorities against defenceless Africans in the Colony of Angola, which has resulted in death and suffering of tens of thousands of people and has become a threat to good relations


between the independent African states and the allies of Portugal within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation; calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take urgent action at the United Nations with a view to action to prevent further bloodshed and chaos; and believes that peace and security in Angola can only be achieved on the basis of full respect for human rights and the establishment of a democratic constitution.]

Mr. Butler: I have already told the Leader of the Opposition that we should reflect upon the proposal which he made.

Dame Irene Ward: Does my right hon. Friend think that the Radcliffe Committee will present its report before the long Recess, or does he think it likely that it will be carried over? In the event of the report not being available, would it not be a good idea to have a discussion on the security services before the House rises?

Mr. Butler: I can give no assurance that we shall have such a discussion before the House rises, nor can I say at present when the Committee will report, but I will investigate what my hon. Friend says.

Mr. Mendelson: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman stated that when the usual channels agreed on the programme for next week nothing was said about Angola, may I ask whether he is aware that in recent days many hon. Members have had a large number of letters from supporters of all parties, and from representatives of the churches in their constituencies, urging them to put all pressure on the Government for an early debate and an early statement by the Government disapproving of the Portuguese policy? In view of that fact, could he not give an assurance that he will arrange time next week for a debate on this urgent matter?

Mr. Butler: I note the urgency which has been expressed in certain parts of the House, but I cannot go further than in my original reply.

Mr. Gardner: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the Motion on the Order Paper dealing with life imprisonment for murder? In view of the disquieting state of the law relating to murder generally and the growing sense

of insecurity which this is causing in the country, can my right hon. Friend say that the House will have an early opportunity to debate this Motion?
[That this House, deeply concerned about the number of murders and mindful of its duty to give society effective protection, notes that in recent years a sentence of life imprisonment for murder has not on average exceeded a period of nine years, and urges Her Majesty's Government to take immediate steps to introduce legislation to ensure that a sentence of life imprisonment for this crime shall be a period of not less than 25 years, unless a court in its discretion orders otherwise.]

Mr. Butler: I have noted the Motion, and realise its importance, but at the moment I can give no assurance of a debate.

Mr. Jay: When he is failing to find time for so many important Bills and other matters, why does the right hon. Gentleman give such extremely high priority to the Suicide Bill [Lords]?

Mr. Butler: It is not a very high priority. It is being taken rather late. It is a very important social Bill to reform the law, as requested by one of the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends, who initiated the subject. I do not think that the House will have much difficulty in finding the very short time needed for it.

Mr. W. Yates: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, following the report of the British Red Cross Society, there are other hon. Members in the House, besides the Opposition, who would like to express some opinions on Angola?

Mr. Butler: I will certainly note what my hon. Friend said.

Mr. Shinwell: If the right hon. Gentleman is seeking time for a debate on the important question of Angola, will he not suspend consideration of the North Atlantic Shipping Bill and have the debate on Angola next week?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. It is our intention to proceed with that Bill.

Mr. Fell: In considering the request for the debate on Angola, by the Opposition chiefly—

Mr. Lipton: And by one hon. Member opposite, the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates).

Mr. Fell: I said "chiefly".
In his consideration, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there are many hon. Members, I imagine some even on the other side of the House and certainly many on this side, who do not believe that it helps matters in Portugal or Angola for this House to have a debate to interfere in the internal affairs of Portugal?

Mr. Butler: All those considerations will be borne in mind. I will simply give consideration to the requests which have been made.

Mr. G. Brown: Pontius Pilate could have said nothing better.

Mr. Darling: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when we are to have the Second Reading of the Weights and Measures Bill?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend hopes to be able to give an answer on this subject before long.

Mr. Strauss: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any information about the Road Traffic Bill? Would it not be better to admit that at this stage of the Session it is quite impossible to deal with that Bill before the end of the Session?

Mr. Butler: I have no statement to make on that subject today.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed the Motion on the Order Paper about disturbances in Calais? Apart from the international considerations, does he not realise that the great majority of our young people, being very well behaved, are eager to be protected against such behaviour? Will he give time for the House to consider this matter?
[That this House deplores the lamentable behaviour of British youths on a passportless trip to Calais during the weekend of 17th-18th June, tenders its regrets to the citizens of Calais for the disturbance of their festivities and calls on the Minister of Transport to make

such regulations as will render the recurrence of exhibitions of had manners unlikely.]

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I regret that I cannot give any undertaking of time for the Motion, but I have read it.

Mr. Manuel: Will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the plea made by the Leader of the Opposition that we should debate Angola next week? Will he not consider dropping the Human Tissue Bill next week and debating the great loss of human life in Angola, which is something which I think we all deplore, on both sides of the House?

Mr. Butler: I do not think that there is any relation in time between the two subjects, since one would obviously take longer than the other. It would need greater consideration than the other. However, I cannot add to the answer I have given to the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Fernyhough: Has either the Leader of the House or any of his colleagues had any recent discussions with the Cunard Company about the building of the new "Queen"? Is he not aware that doubts are being expressed now? Would it not be a good thing to make sure that, if the House of Commons does give approval to the North Atlantic Shipping Bill, the Cunard Company will take advantage of it?

Mr. Butler: My right lion. Friend is continually in touch with the interests concerned, and we have decided to proceed with the Bill.

Mr. C. Pannell: In view of the present state of Government business, and the extent to which it is in arrears, can the Leader of the House give us any guarantee that we shall be able to adjourn for the long Recess in time for our respective party conferences?

Mr. Butler: Government business is proceeding according to plan. We have made very nice progress with certain of our most important Bills and have to some extent been helped by right hon. Members opposite. I realise that hon. Members opposite will need a very long holiday before their conference, and we shall see that they get it.

Mr. S. Silverman: Is the right hon. Gentleman serious when he tells the House that Government business is proceeding according to plan? Does he really mean that this is how the Government foresaw it at the beginning of the Session?

Mr. Butler: Being something of an old hand, I certainly foresaw difficulties.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

Considered in Committee.

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1961–62

CLASS II

VOTE 4. COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS OFFICE

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £2,815,200, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1962, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, including oversea establishments, and the salary of the Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations. [£1,750,000 has been voted on account.]

Whereupon Motion made, and Question, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Redmayne]—put and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — SOUTHERN RHODESIA

3.53 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Bernard Braine): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the proposals for the revision of the Constitution of Southern Rhodesia set out in Command Papers Nos. 1399 and 1400.
Southern Rhodesia has enjoyed a considerable measure of responsible government for nearly forty years. The Constitution granted in 1923 was designed to confer upon her inhabitants, if I may borrow the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), in his historic despatch on the subject,
full and satisfactory control of their government and administration, subject only to the reservations which the peculiar history of the country imposed.
Under the provisions of that Constitution the country has enjoyed a long period of internal peace and stable government, a modern economy has been


established, and a high rate of growth sustained. But Constitutions are made for men, not the other way round, and for some time past it has been apparent that Southern Rhodesia's growth and development and the greater maturity of its people call for constitutional change.
The principal features of the 1923 Constitution were that Southern Rhodesia was given responsible government in internal affairs, subject to certain powers reserved to the Secretary of State, whilst the United Kingdom remained responsible for external affairs. What were the powers reserved to the United Kingdom? There was, first, a general power of disallowance of any Act of the Southern Rhodesian Legislature within a year of its passage. That is a feature common to all colonial Constitutions. But in the case of Southern Rhodesia it has never been exercised.
Then there were the reserved powers specifically designed to meet the circumstances of Southern Rhodesia. The Legislature could not legislate on a specific, defined range of subjects without the Act in each case being reserved by the Governor for the Royal Assent, which, in practice, meant that it had to secure the approval of the Government in London.
What were the subjects on which legislation had to be reserved? First, there were laws which discriminated against Africans. Here, the reserve power was supplemented by a provision that no subsidiary legislation should discriminate against Africans without the prior consent of the Secretary of State, unless it was governed by specific authority in a principal Act. Secondly, there were laws to repeal or amend those parts of the Constitution which were repealable or amendable by the Southern Rhodesian Legislature. Thirdly, there was any law or provision to set up a Legislative Council, that is to say, a Second Chamber. That is an academic question, because no Second Chamber has ever been set up.
Fourthly, after the Land Apportionment Act was passed in 1930, it was provided that any law amending it would require the Secretary of State's approval. To present what I have to say in an orderly fashion, I should like to refer to land later in more detail. Finally, it was provided that the key provisions of the Constitution, some of which I have already mentioned, could be amended

only by Order in Council in London. That is to say, they were put beyond the reach of the Southern Rhodesian Legislature.
Those were the main powers reserved to the British Government in London. My right hon. Friend described them the other day as a "blunt instrument". That is a very apt description. There were certain other provisions—for example, the Government was required to reserve certain categories of Bills, such as those affecting treaty obligations.
Nearly forty years have elapsed since the 1923 Constitution was granted. In that period, as we all know, conditions have changed greatly. The European population has advanced in experience of modern methods of government and in understanding of the claims which a multiracial society makes in terms of social welfare and economic development. In that period, too, the African population has grown in numbers. They have advanced in education. They have developed a lively political awareness.
It is not surprising that Africans should now be claiming a greater share in the conduct of their country's affairs. It is only natural that Europeans, whose energy, initiative and savings have helped to create a flourishing economy, should feel that the time has come when the responsibilities which appropriately were kept reserved in London at a much earlier stage of development should now be transferred to Salisbury.
So it was that, in 1959, Sir Edgar Whitehead suggested to Her Majesty's Government that the time was ripe for a review of the Constitution. It was recognised all round that there was need for a change. There followed long and detailed discussions with the Southern Rhodesian Government, culminating in the Constitutional Conference at which all interested parties were represented, which was held in Salisbury last February and presided over by my right hon. Friend.
It would have been possible to have confined the Constitutional Conference to the single issue of Her Majesty's Government relinquishing the reserved powers and replacing them with effective safeguards written into the Constitution. I say that it would have been possible, but it would hardly have been wise. I think that the whole House will agree that if, in the future, the races in that


country are to live and to work and to prosper together, as they must, a wider representation for Africans has to be provided and, accordingly, the Southern Rhodesian Government recognised that it was desirable to consider the questions of franchise and representation.
Naturally, in these discussions, there were differences of opinion. That was not remarkable; it was to be expected. What was remarkable was the very large measure of agreement secured over a very wide field. Of course, neither the Report of the conference, nor my right hon. Friend, when he addressed us on the subject later, has implied that the National Democratic Party—or any other party, for that matter—was completely satisfied with the proposals for the franchise and representation.
On the contrary, paragraph 18 of the Report specifically states that having regard to these widely varying views and aspirations,
it was not surprising that no group was able to secure the agreement of the conference to the particular system it favoured.
It adds that
Nevertheless, while maintaining their respective positions, all groups (with the exception of the representatives of the Dominion Party) considered that the scheme outlined below should be introduced.
We have not departed from the Report of the conference. The proposals outlined in that Report are set out in much greater detail in the two White Papers, together with details of those provisions which the Salisbury Conference accepted in principle but left to the two Governments to work out in detail. Hon. Members will, of course, now have had the opportunity of studying the White Papers, and will have observed that, while some features of the old Constitution are maintained, very important and significant changes have been introduced.
Broadly speaking, the most important of these fall under two heads. First, there is the composition of the Legislature itself, and the franchise. Secondly, there is the replacement of the reserved powers now held in London by new safeguards written into the Constitution in the form of a Declaration of Rights, a Constitutional Council, new arrangements in respect of land and amendments to the Constitution. I should like to deal with each of these in turn, and

I propose to do so by showing what the position is under the present Constitution, and how it will be affected by the changes we propose.
First, there is the franchise. At present, there is a common roll with two methods of entry; by ordinary qualifications, and by lower qualifications, and the details of what that means precisely are set out in Appendix 1 of Cmd. 1399. There are, at the moment, about 84,000 registered voters on this roll. Of those, 4,500 are Africans, 1,000 are Asian, 1,000 are Coloured, and the rest are Europeans.
Voters with the lower qualifications, however, are in a minority—this is the present position—and there is a limit to the number of them who can register. Even so, I think that it is true to say that, while no precise figures are available, it is generally believed that the number of persons who could qualify for the lower qualification would considerably increase the number of African voters on the roll if they registered.
The new proposals envisage two separate rolls, and the details of these are set out in Appendix 2 of Cmd. 1399. First there is an "A" roll, with qualifications similar to the existing ordinary qualification, to which have been added chiefs and headmen; and, secondly, a "B" roll, designed to bring in a much broader section of the population than the existing lower qualifications have so far succeeded in doing. This "B" roll—and this is a most important feature—will have no limit on numbers. The income qualifications are eased and broadened considerably, and there is special provision for bringing in people over the age of 30 with somewhat lower means and educational qualifications.
We propose that these new and broader qualifications should be entrenched in the Constitution in such a way as to permit more people to be given the vote in the future, but prevent it ever being taken away from those entitled to it under those provisions; except, I had better add, by the rigorous procedure laid down for amendment of the basic clauses of the Constitution, which means that it would have to be referred to each of the four groups. One can see, therefore, that this is a very effective safeguard, indeed, against anyone having the vote taken from them in the future.
How will the franchise operate? There will be a set of 50 constituencies, covering the whole country. There will also be a set of 15 electoral districts, covering the whole country. One member will be returned for each constituency, and one member for each electoral district, making 65 members in all. The "A" roll and "B" roll electors will vote in both the constituency and the electoral district in which they reside. In the constituencies, the "B" roll vote, if it exceeds 25 per cent. of the "A" roll vote, will be scaled down to 25 per cent. Conversely, in the electoral districts, the "A" roll votes will be scaled down to 25 per cent. of the "B" roll votes. In addition—I know that this is somewhat complicated, and I will try to explain it in as simple terms as I can—there is provision for a voter to indicate a second choice of candidate if he wishes to do so.
There are two further points that could be made about the franchise proposals. First, there is no limit to the number of Africans who can be added to the upper, or "A" roll, and as education spreads and economic standards advance we can expect that more Africans will do so. But these, of course, are the very conditions that make for that sense of responsibility which it is the purpose of this Constitution to preserve.
The second point about the franchise is that the system of cross voting and devaluation sounds complicated, I readily admit, but, in its essence, it is simple enough, because its purpose is to reduce the tendency to vote on purely racial lines. I think, in fact I am certain, that it will succeed in this, since candidates who hope to get elected will need to pay regard to the interests and views of voters on both rolls.
At present, the Legislative Assembly in Southern Rhodesia has only 30 seats, and there are no African members. It had already been recognised in Southern Rhodesia that there was a need for African representation and, accordingly, a law was passed last year to enlarge the Assembly from 30 seats to 50 seats at the next General Election, in the hope that by creating a larger number of smaller constituencies there would be some constituencies in which the African vote would predominate and African members would stand a much better chance of election.
Those proposals have been overtaken by the proposals we are now discussing. Our proposals now will increase the number of seats to 65. Of these, it seems likely that at least the 15 electoral districts will be controlled by African voters, and probably more, and I should like to emphasise here that this is a very substantial advance on the present position.
I turn now to the second group of changes which arise from the replacement of reserved powers held in London by local safeguards. Her Majesty's Government have made it plain in the House that their alibity to accept a scheme which would reduce or withdraw the powers vested in the Secretary of State would depend on whether arrangements could be devised which would provide effective alternative safeguards, particularly in respect of discriminatory legislation and land rights, and in respect of the amendment of the Constitution. We believe that the safeguards devised are not only as effective but, in fact, will be more effective, than the reserved powers which they will replace.
Hon. Members will recall that the Monckton Commission proposed that a Bill of Rights and a Council of State should be introduced into the Southern Rhodesia Constitution. Our proposals follow this recommendation. Broadly speaking, the proposed Declaration of Rights is acceptable to all races in Southern Rhodesia, and this is hardly surprising, for two reasons; because, first, it stems from a draft unanimously endorsed by all the parties at the Constitutional Conference, except the Dominion Party, and, secondly, it is based in its essentials on the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms which was ratified by the then United Kingdom Government on 8th March, 1951, and is similar to the Bills of Rights written into the new Constitutions of Nigeria and Sierra Leone.
The object of the Declaration of Rights is twofold. First, to codify and enshrine in the Constitution the basic human rights required of a modern democratic society, and, secondly, to provide fully effective alternative safeguards for the present requirement that discriminatory legislation be reserved for approval by the British Government. The crux of the Declaration of Rights is


to be found in Clauses 11 and 12 in Part II of the White Paper (Cmnd. 1400), which lay down that no person shall be subjected to a condition, restriction or disability on account of race or accorded a privilege or advantage denied to others because of race.
Here is an important distinction: existing reserved powers protect Africans only. The Declaration of Rights extends its protection to all persons, regardless of race. It provides therefore, a new but essential element in the task of ridding Southern Rhodesia of the fear that one racial group may act unfairly towards another and building a mutual confidence between the races. It will play a major role, in our view, in creating a climate of opinion unfavourable to racial discrimination.
Hon. Members may have observed that these provisions will not apply to laws that are in force on the appointed day.

Mr. James Callaghan: I was wondering when the hon. Gentleman was coming to that.

Mr. Braine: If the hon. Gentleman will have patience, I am coming to that and I shall deal with it in considerable detail.
I intended to say that many hon. Members may wonder whether this does not detract from the value of the Declaration. The Declaration of Rights is a safeguard of very great value to every person in Southern Rhodesia. It will be for the courts to decide whether any new law or part of a law is inconsistent with the Declaration of Rights.
But for the Constitution to have made the Declaration apply to all laws immediately would have thrown into a state of uncertainty some laws which, at this stage, cannot be held to be harmful. Accordingly, we have provided—in paragraph 32 of Part I—that the Constitutional Council may draw the attention of the legislature to any existing laws or subsidiary legislation which, in their opinion, is consistent with the Declaration.
What about future legislation? The Declaration of Rights, enforcible as it is by the courts is, as I have said, a safeguard of great value to every person in Southern Rhodesia since the Legis-

lative Assembly will have to take into account the possibility of laws being ruled invalid by the courts. From the High Court of Southern Rhodesia an appeal lies to the Supreme Court of the Federation and provision is to be made for a right of appeal from that court to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

Mr. Callaghan: And existing laws?

Mr. Braine: No. It does not make provision for existing laws. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to deal with that point as we go along.

Mr. Callaghan: This is important.

Mr. Braine: Of course it is, but one cannot sweep away existing discriminatory laws overnight.

Mr. John Stonehouse: Why not?

Mr. Braine: Because, for instance, in the case of land, it would be to strip away from Africans at the present time a safeguard of the utmost value.

Mr. Speaker: It is insufferably difficult if hon. Members, while remaining seated, maintain a loud commentary simultaneously with the Minister.

Mr. Braine: If the hon. Member for Cardiff, South East (Mr. Callaghan) will allow me to continue, he will find that I shall try to deal with this subject in a logical sequence and to meet the anxieties which are in his mind.

Mr. Callaghan: As the hon. Gentleman has said, this is of grave importance. It is, of course, of considerable value to have a right of appeal to the High Court in Southern Rhodesia, and, finally, to the Privy Council in respect of future laws that may be discriminatory. But would the hon. Gentleman explain why the same right of appeal should not apply in the case of existing laws? I am not saying that they should all be swept away, but that the courts should be in the same position in relation to existing laws as they will be to laws to be passed in the future.

Mr. Braine: We are, this afternoon, dealing with a new Constitution and new provisions. Under the present law, there is no appeal from the Supreme Court to the Judicial Committee of the


Privy Council except by special leave. In view of the great importance of the Declaration of Rights as a safeguard, it seemed essential that a litigant should have the right to take any question of the interpretation of the Declaration of Rights to the highest judicial tribunal in the Commonwealth.
Of course, it would be much better to ensure that unfair legislation does not reach the Statute Book. This is the primary function of the Constitutional Council. This body is similar to the Council of State recommended by the Monckton Commission, though not identical. It will not have a veto. Its functions will be advisory. But it will have delaying powers on principal legislation and, on subsidiary legislation, an adverse report will have the effect of making it void, unless it is confirmed by the Assembly within 21 sitting days. Thus, the authority vested in the Constitutional Council will be considerable and its influence on the changing pattern of the country undoubted.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, as is so often the case, is firmly rooted in the past. We are here considering proposals which will bring great changes and great benefits, perhaps not as great and as extensive as the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends would wish, but this is a forward move and we have no power at the moment to initiate any legislation to repeal laws already on the Southern Rhodesia Statute Book.
The new Constitution provides for the Constitutional Council to examine existing legislation and to report to the Assembly if it considers it to be inconsistent with the Declaration of Rights. This has been generally accepted in Southern Rhodesia to mean that the Whole purpose of this Constitution is to get away from racial discrimination.
The primary function of the Constitutional Council will be this examination. We have tried to arrange for the Council to be constituted in a way which will demonstrate its impartiality and inspire the confidence of all races. We do not feel that it should be composed only of lawyers, but that it should have a legal element. We do not feel that its racial composition should be rigidly specified, but we think that there should be a minimum representation from the four racial

groups. For the election of the first Council, a special body will be convened composed of the judges of the High Court and the president of the Council of Chiefs, with the Chief Justice of Southern Rhodesia acting as Chairman.
Hon. Members will have observed from paragraph 28 of Part I that if the Southern Rhodesia Government consider a Bill exceptionally urgent they have the right to issue a Certificate of Urgency. In such a case, the Bill may be submitted to the Governor for Assent without waiting for clearance from the Constitutional Council. The Council will subsequently consider the law. I mention this because hon. Members may very well wonder what guarantee there is against the Southern Rhodesia Government using a Certificate of Urgency to circumvent the safeguards.
The answer is that the Certificate of Urgency, while exempting a Bill from immediate scrutiny by the Council, will not exempt it from challenge in the courts. In this connection, an interesting and, I think, important innovation, which may appeal to hon. Members, is that the Constitutional Council will have power to issue certificates entitling litigants in suitable test cases to be helped financially.
I come now to the important matter of land. It was agreed in principle at the Constitutional Conference that the powers of the United Kingdom Government in matters of land should be eliminated, provided that fully effective safeguards could be devised. May I just mention again what are the existing powers reserved to the Secretary of State. There are the Native Reserves safeguarded under the existing Constitution. There can be no reduction in the amount of native reserve land available for Africans except by Order in Council. Then there is the Land Apportionment Act, which allocates the rest of Southern Rhodesia between the races. Under the present Constitution, amendments to this Act are reserved and adjustments between European and African land require the Secretary of State's approval.
Under the proposed new arrangements, the African land in the reserves and land which under the Land Apportionment Act is allocated to Africans on a basis of communal tenure will be amalgamated into a new category of Tribal Trust Land.


We are convinced that this will make for much more efficient administration. The Board of Trustees has been enlarged to include African representation and to include qualified experts. Its terms of reference are much more clearly defined than was the case before.
As regards the Land Apportionment Act, it has been said, and no doubt will be said again today, that the Constitutional Conference ignored the real land problem by leaving land restricted on a racial basis. This was what lay behind the intervention a little earlier. This, of course, was not the business of the Constitutional Conference, nor could anyone in his senses suggest that the present racial divisions could be swept away overnight without causing chaos and distress, especially to Africans. What the new Constitution has done is to ensure that the Land Apportionment Act cannot be altered in a retrograde sense, that is to say, that the area allotted to a particular race can only be reduced and not increased. Or, indeed, the Land Apportionment Act can be repealed altogether when the time for that is considered ripe.
In addition to these new arrangements and safeguards, which we believe will be fully effective, two new features of the constitutional provisions for land pave the way towards a much more progressive and flexible land policy. They are the arrangements for the use of outside capital for irrigation schemes and the permitting of conversion from communal tenure to freehold ownership. More effective and efficient use of land is an urgent requirement everywhere in Africa today. We believe that these changes will be of great benefit, especially to African farmers.
The House may feel that the provisions for amendment to the Constitution do not call for special comment, but I think that it would be appropriate for me to say that Southern Rhodesia would be free to amend any section of its Constitution by a two-thirds majority of its total membership, with the exception of amendments affecting the position of the Queen and the Governor and international obligations and Southern Rhodesia's own obligations under the Colonial Stock Acts. Southern Rhodesia will be free to do this except in regard to certain basic clauses in the Consti-

tution. These relate to the Declaration of Rights, appeals to the Privy Council, the Constitutional Council, the judiciary and the provisions governing the amendment of the Constitution itself.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman say why there has been a departure from the suggestion of the Monckton Commission that there should be a three-quarters majority? Why was it reduced to two-thirds? Was there hard bargaining about that in the constitutional discussions? These are entrenched clauses, and I should have thought that there would not be any diminution from the requirement of a three-quarters majority.

Mr. Braine: I think that the answer is that a very much more effective safeguard has been devised in the sense that in order to amend these basic clauses to which I have just referred it will be necessary to obtain a majority of each of the racial groups voting separately. It will be necessary to obtain the support of each racial group before any amendment of these basic clauses is possible. I am sure that the House will agree that that is a much more effective safeguard.
Hon. Members may have noted that there is to be an alternative procedure whereby the Legislative Assembly will be able to seek United Kingdom approval instead of holding a referendum. The British Government will be able to decline to decide the matter if they consider that a referendum would be more appropriate in the circumstances. That has been inserted to enable minor and uncontroversial amendments to be made without recourse to the expensive and elaborate procedure of a referendum.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: One matter has been troubling me throughout the hon. Gentleman's speech. Ls this House to have any other opportunity of discussing the detail of these constitutional changes which are proposed?
As I understand, there will in due course have to be an Order in Council, but what concerns me is whether any subsequent legislation which will be called for from this House will enable us to discuss the detail of these constitutional proposals, or whether that contemplated legislation will consist


merely of a general Bill empowering the Southern Rhodesia Parliament to introduce the new Constitution.
I ask that question because it may well affect the course of this debate and the detailed consideration which may have to be given to these most interesting detailed constitutional suggestions.

Mr. Braine: I am very grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for asking that question. There will, of course, be a Bill enabling the Queen to bring in an Order in Council. That, I should have thought, would be debatable. Perhaps I might reflect on the matter. There certainly will be a further opportunity for discussion.

Mr. H. A. Marquand: In recent independence legislation—Sierra Leone was the last example—we had before us an Order in Council. It was true that it was possible to debate it in a sort of Second Reading debate, but there was no opportunity to propose amendments to any part of it. Will that be possible in this case?

Mr. Braine: The right hon. Gentleman should be clear about this. The purpose of this debate is to discuss these matters. The debate has scarcely got off the ground yet. Full opportunity will be given for the House to express its views on these matters today. Let us see how we get on.

Mr. Marquand: I am perfectly well aware that we shall have a full opportunity to discuss all the principles of this Constitution today. What we are anxious about at this moment is whether, at a later stage of the proceedings, any amendment to the proposed Constitution will be possible in this House.

Mr. Braine: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is making heavy weather of this. It is not the practice to subject Constitutions to a series of debates. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is devaluing the views which undoubtedly will be expressed and to which due weight will be given.
I wish to emphasise that the really important point is that, to amend the basic clauses of the Constitution, it will be necessary to obtain the agreement of the majority of each of the four principal racial communities voting separately. I cannot think of a more effective safe-

guard in the present circumstances of Southern Rhodesia than that, and I believe that it is a much more effective safeguard than any other which has been suggested.
The Opposition's Amendment suggests that these proposals were formulated without consultation with the Africans of Southern Rhodesia. I reject that suggestion entirely. I should like to make the position clear. From the beginning, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has left the House in no doubt that the interests of Africans would be given full weight in the event of any change being made in the Constitution of Southern Rhodesia. We were quite sure that we had to give Africans full opportunity to express their views, and we have done so. The Constitutional Conference provided an opportunity for the expression of all shades of opinion in the country. For example, the views of the National Democratic Party were heard and they certainly subscribed to the conclusions set out in the Report. My right hon. Friend explained in the debate on 23rd March the circumstances in which they did so.
Hon. Members may have noticed that in paragraph 39 of the Report of the Constitutional Conference the two Governments concerned were charged with the task of working out
the details of a new draft Constitution, in consultation where necessary with those who attended the Conference".
This meant, in effect, consultation about such fundamental matters as the definition of discrimination in the Declaration of Rights, the composition of the Constitutional Council, the arrangements for electing its members, and, for Africans, the fundamental matter of the provisions which would have to be made in regard to land.
Sir Edgar Whitehead carried out his obligations in the matter. He convened a meeting of all the parties concerned in order to discuss these important matters, the details of which had been left over and had not been worked out at the conference itself. The National Democratic Party decided to walk out. Had it chosen not to do so, it would have had an opportunity, like the other parties, of expressing views and of helping to shape the detailed provisions of the Constitution.
Even further opportunities for consultation were provided. When my right hon. Friend went to Salisbury for a further round of talks with the parties—and very helpful those talks were—the National Democratic Party, while it courteously accepted his invitation to see him, declined to express any views on the points that he put to them. It therefore cannot be said that we did not consult the National Democratic Party. The opportunity for consultation was offered. It was not accepted.

Mr. Peter Tapsell: While I fully recognise that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made every possible effort to persuade the National Democratic Party to enter into these consultations, is it not a fact that the reason why it refused to do so was that the Southern Rhodesian Government refused to discuss the whole of the Land Apportionment Act with it? Is it not a pity that the Southern Rhodesian Government refused to do so?

Mr. Braine: On the contrary. I think that my hon. Friend is wholly misinformed about that.
I was about to say—and I think that the point must be made—that the National Democratic Party does not speak for all Africans in Southern Rhodesia. There were other distinguished Africans present at the Constitutional Conference, representative of the hereditary chiefs of the country, and also representatives of other political parties who do not share the National Democratic Party's political beliefs and do not approve of its tactics.

Mr. Callaghan: If the Joint Under-Secretary of State believes that his hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. Tapsell) is misinformed, can he give us the reasons why the representatives of the party refused to meet the Commonwealth Secretary?

Mr. Braine: No, Sir. That is no part of my purpose this afternoon. If the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) manages to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, he will have an opportunity of developing the point.

Mr. Callaghan: Let us be fair about this. The Joint Under-Secretary of State, who has been good at giving way, is not being fair. He is making it part of his

case that the Africans had the opportunity of meeting the Secretary of State far Commonwealth Relations but that they refused to do so. If he wishes to rest on that case, is it not germane to it that he should tell us the reasons why they refused to meet him? The hon. Member for Nottingham, West has advanced one reason. Is not another reason that they were refused permission to organise or to hold meetings in the territories?

Mr. Braine: The hon. Gentleman piles one error on another. There has been no ban on meetings in the areas outside the native reserves and within the native reserves there has been a ban only on meetings in which more than 12 persons were concerned. If the purpose of the National Democratic Party was to consult responsible and leading Africans in the reserves, it was perfectly free to do so, but the fact of the matter is that in the reserves there is already a well-established hierarchy. There are native councils representative of and elected by the people. The chiefs were brought into consultation by Sir Edgar Whitehead. They elected a representative number to go into these very details and they found no fault with what had been decided in respect of them.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is it not a fact that—

Mr. Braine: Whatever the detailed criticisms may be, none can deny that these new proposals represent a very substantial advance on the present position. At the Constitutional Conference they commanded the general support of moderate Europeans and Africans.
Of course, there are some in Central Africa—there may be some in this country—who think that the proposals do not go far enough. There are some who think that they go too far. In Southern Rhodesia, there are extremists of both races who, if I may borrow Burke's famous dictum, view moderation as a sort of treason. We cannot satisfy everyone. We have to find the point of balance in the situation and then choose a course which will command the support of the majority in the country, the moderates, which will preserve stability, encourage responsibility and provide a secure basis for further advance. I believe that we have done this and I commend these proposals to the House.

4.39 p.m.

Mr. H. A. Marquand: I beg to move, at the end of the Question to add:
but cannot assent to proposals involving the abandonment of powers at present reserved to the United Kingdom for the protection of the African people of Southern Rhodesia, which have been formulated without their consent and which fail to provide for them a representation in the legislature sufficient to safeguard their liberties".
This is the second debate that we have had on the proposed Constitution for Southern Rhodesia. Unfortunately, much of what we have heard from the Joint Under-Secretary of State this afternoon we have heard before. There has been no substantial or satisfactory change in these proposals since we debated them in outline in March. Very little notice, if any, has been taken of the criticisms and suggestions that we put forward then. The hon. Member then told us that it would have been open to the Government to hold a discussion with the Southern Rhodesian Government solely on the question of the surrender of the reserved powers and the obtaining, in return for that surrender, of same compensation by way of other safeguards. He said that they did not do this because there were wider considerations. There were indeed! In view of all that had happened in Africa in the last two years it would have been completely impossible to have done anything of the kind.
It would have been unthinkable to discuss with Southern Rhodesia merely the substitution of some alternative safeguards for the reserved powers which the United Kingdom has. The decisions which this Parliament may take about the Southern Rhodesian Constitution may affect the future of the whale of Africa. We must consider those proposals in the light of all that has gone before, and not merely in the light of the inquiry of the Monckton Commission and the excellent Report which it presented. We must consider them in the light of what has happened in Africa generally.
In West Africa, we have helped in the creation of a number of independent States, based on democracy, in which people of all races can and do live together with equal political rights and equal rights before the law, with no question of discrimination. Now the Secretary of State for the Colonies is

seeking to do the same in East and Central Africa. It is more difficult there because of the existence of immigrant populations, which have wished to settle permanently. Those settlers have been given a large share of power. But, in spite of those difficulties, in other parts of East and Central Africa great advances have been made.
As we all know, and as I hope we all rejoice, by December Tanganyika will be independent. Indeed, it already has an African Prime Minister and a Legislature with a substantial African majority, and nothing has prevented the co-operation of the immigrant races in the new future. They are all behind it and taking part in it. Their representatives are in London at the moment, as we know. White men, Africans and Asians are working together in harmony, on the basis of the Constitution. It does not need to allocate a tiny majority of seats to the majority of people. There is the election of a majority Government in the ordinary way of democracy.
A similar Constitution, which does not go quite so far but which is intended without doubt to do so very soon, has been established in Kenya, with an African leader of Government business and an African majority in the Legislature. Nobody proposes that there should be special safeguards beyond those of the law and of the Declaration of Rights. In Nyasaland, right within what we call Central Africa, and within what is still the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, we have the Constitution of Nyasaland, which is a democratic Constitution allowing the people to elect their own Legislature and providing, before long, for the carrying on of all Government business there by elected African people.
These changes have been carried out readily and properly, with our warm approval, by the present Government. If something less than this is proposed for the Rhodesias, Northern or Southern, we must ask why the pattern is to be different. If we do not ask it the Africans most certainly will. The African in Southern Rhodesia will ask, "What is the difference between me and a citizen of Kenya? What is the difference between me and a citizen of Nyasaland? Do you mean to tell me that after all these years of living side by


side with the white people of Southern Rhodesia we are less civilised than the people of Kenya or Tanganyika? Why should this tiny measure of participation in our own Government now be proposed, which contrasts so sharply to what has been done elsewhere?"
If we cannot now secure the good will of the great majority of the people of the Rhodesias, this effort to create racial harmony, a peaceful living together, and the total avoidance of apartheid in Africa—which we have heard hon. Members on both sides agree with on so many occasions—will fail. We want the effort to succeed. We want men of all races to be able to live together in harmony. We want a settlement that is fair to all. It is for that reason that we want a fair deal for those who, hitherto, have had less than justice. The system hitherto prevailing in Southern Rhodesia has been less than justice. It has been condemned by the Monckton Commission and, more recently, by the Roman Catholic bishops in Southern Rhodesia.
It is against this background that we must judge the Constitution now put forward and test the validity of the proposal that we should surrender the reserved powers enshrined in the 1923 Constitution and Letters Patent. The purpose of enshrining these reserved powers in the Constitution was to safeguard the rights and liberties of the African majority, because by that same Constitution of 1923 political power was given to the European minority.
From this, a clear principle emerges. These powers should not be surrendered by this House unless it is absolutely sure that the rights of those for whom it is trustee are completely safeguarded. It will not do to say that we are satisfied that some improvement has been made in the constitutional provisions. It certainly will not be sufficient to say that a certain party in Southern Rhodesia may be satisfied if this is done, and will not reject it.
It is we, in the House of Commons, who are trustees; it is we who hold a sacred trust in charge, and who must consider now whether we will surrender our powers. Hon. Members on this side of the House would regard it as a breach of trust on the part of this nation if it

were to surrender these powers for anything less than a complete and absolute safeguard that the interests of these people will always be protected under the Constitution given to them.
Unfortunately, we know that even when we have another debate, even after today's discussion, we will have no opportunity of amending in any way what is proposed. If this is not the case I hope that I shall be corrected, but I understand that when the Bill comes before us it will be in the form of that for Sierra Leone—a Bill empowering Her Majesty to surrender the reserved powers and relating to certain questions of naturalisation and the like.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Duncan Sandys): I would not like the House to be under any misapprehension in this debate. The position is more or less as the right hon. Member describes it. There will be an enabling Bill which will empower Her Majesty, by Order in Council, to bring in a new Constitution. I did not want the whole debate to take place on the assumption that there would be a further debate in which it would be possible to amend these provisions in detail.

Mr. Marquand: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for confirming what I said. It is contained in the introduction to the Constitutional proposals.
If the Bill is passed an Order in Council with a new Constitution annexed will be promulgated. The Order in Council will be debatable in general. It will be possible to vote for it or against it, but it will not be possible to amend it. That is regular constitutional form. We have to take these proposals as they are now put before us. No one can amend them. It is a case of accepting or rejecting them. There can be no question of having second thoughts and saying that this or that should have been put in, because it will be too late.
We have to decide whether it is wholly satisfactory that we as the trustees of the safety, liberties and prosperity of the African people should voluntarily give them up in exchange for this document. In some respects, of course, the Constitution and the other proposals for a new system of Government in Southern Rhodesia are an improvement on what


has gone before. When I first read the draft Constitution I thought that it implied that there was no change in the allocation of the land between the races, although it clearly provided for the way in which the tribal lands were to be administered. I was mistaken. I am grateful to Sir Edgar Whitehead for his courtesy in drawing my attention to this mistake and for sending me a copy of the amending Bill to the Land Apportionment Act, which is now before the Southern Rhodesian Legislature.
If that amending Bill is passed, it will free from reservation 5 million acres of land. Some of the land taken from land at present reserved to Africans and some land at present reserved to Europeans will, put together, be open for purchase by an citizens, irrespective of their race or colour. But, of course, it will still be true that the area of land reserved to one-tenth of the population of Southern Rhodesia will be wholly out of proportion to that available for the nine-tenths, and of that land, the vast amount of which will be reserved for European occupation only, it is well-known that considerable quantities are still unoccupied. That is a situation very different from that which was freely agreed in negotiations between the races in Kenya, which was confronted with a similar problem of reserved land when the new constitutional difficulties were considered. I freely admit, and I am glad, that there has been a step forward here. But I do not honestly think that we can say that these proposals for the revision of land apportionment amount to the sweeping changes to which we were encouraged to look forward.
The Monckton Commission referred in its Report to the possibility of drastic changes in the system of land apportionment. The Secretary of State used the phrase "sweeping changes" in our last debate. I wonder if we can really say that these changes, although welcome, constitute "sweeping changes", or the drastic changes which the Monckton Commission appeared to think were necessary. The Constitution itself is an improvement on what went before.

Mr. Sandys: In what connection did I speak about sweeping changes in the Land Apportionment Act?

Mr. Marquand: I have the reference here; I do not think I have made a mis-

take. I think that the right hon. Gentleman there referred to the revision of the Land Apportionment Act which he anticipated would be made.
The Constitution is itself an improvement on what went before. At present there are no Africans in the Legislative Council. There is no other country in Africa, except the Union of South Africa—not even, I think, including the Portuguese territories—in which that is so. Under this proposal there is to be at least some sharing of power in the Legislative authority. There may be fifteen seats for Africans. It is not certain that there will be. I do not want to enter into the complicated details of the voting provisions in the franchise. I think that all hon. Members present today know them very well indeed, and that they must agree that it is doubtful whether there will in fact be as many as 15 seats. Africans who have been to see me certainly doubt it. At best, there will be 15 seats.

Mr. R. H. Turton: I think that at best the figure is 18 and not 15.

Mr. Marquand: It is a matter of opinion how the voting will work out. What is quite clear, in the difference of opinion between us, is that there is no firm agreement that there will be one-third of the Legislature in the hands of the Africans. What matters most is whether or not Africans have or have not at least one-third of the Legislature. Fifteen seats, or it may be as many as 18 seats, are to go to the representatives of nine-tenths of the inhabitants, and 50 seats, or perhaps 46 seats, to the representatives of one-tenth of the inhabitants. How strikingly different this is from what has been found necessary and desirable in Nyasaland and Kenya! Allowing for what went on in the past there are some doubts whether this will really succeed in Central Africa now after all the water that has flowed under the bridge.
Then there is the Declaration of Human Rights. It contains an admirable Preamble which everyone here can admire and would like to see accepted by everyone in Southern Rhodesia. There are many Clauses beyond criticism, since they are, as the hon. Member reminded us, modelled on the United Nations Charter of Constitutional


Rights, and they also appertain to Sierra Leone and other Dominions, or rather sovereign members of the Commonwealth. This Declaration is proposed as the alternative to the reserved powers. This is what we are to accept, in the main, in exchange for giving up the trusteeship, as I have called it, which we hold. Yet Clause 14 of the Declaration itself, which is to be found on pages 41 to 42, says that nothing, in the admirable Declaration of Liberties in the first twelve Clauses, shall be held to be in contravention of any of the provisions of any existing law.
This means that the Law and Order Maintenance Act, the outrageous provisions which caused the resignation of the Chief Justice of Southern Rhodesia, will still remain valid if this is put on the Statute Book. So will the Vagrancy Act under which many Africans, who spoke for their people, are still in prison without trial. The Vagrancy Act will still be law and untouched.
Clause 11, which purports to protect from racial discrimination, lays it down that regard must be had to the circumstances of the case, including
the stage of social or economic development for the time being reached by the various descriptions of persons affected; and the state for the time being of the economy of Southern Rhodesia";
where, in the light of these considerations, a discriminatory law is
reasonably justifiable…in the interests of Southern Rhodesia as a whole",
these are the requirements which must be borne in mind by the court.
Think of them carefully. "Circumstances of the case", including
the stage of social or economic development for the time being reached by the various descriptions of persons affected".
What can that mean? It can only mean the question whether Africans are yet sufficiently well paid, are yet sufficiently well educated. That is all that that can possibly mean.
Then there is having regard to "the economy of Southern Rhodesia". Put these two things together, the state of evolution, the state of economic wellbeing, the state of economic advancement of the Africans, and the interests of the

whole of Southern Rhodesia. Surely this could mean—I do not see what else it could mean, but if it does not mean this I shall be happy—that the prohibition of trade union activities by Africans would be unlawful.
Could it mean that forced labour would be used? Could it mean, if the prohibition of trade union action by Africans were introduced by Law and passed, that it would be found under the clause not to be contrary to the Declaration of Rights? Could it mean, if forced labour were imposed by the Legislature in Southern Rhodesia, that it could be found by the court not to be contrary to the Declaration of Rights?
I would prefer to keep the power, to disallow such a law, in our own hands rather than to leave it to a protecting clause of that description.
There is a Constitutional Council charged with the duty of enforcing the Declaration, but, as we have already been told this afternoon by the Under-Secretary of State, all it can do about existing legislation, the Law and Order Maintenance Act, the Vagrancy Act, and statutes of that kind which are now in force in Southern Rhodesia, is to report to the Legislative Council, a Council not likely in the near future to be made up so very differently from the Legislative Council which passed those laws. It is to report to the Legislative Council and leave it to that Council—to leave it to lie on the table if it feels so inclined.

Mr. Braine: I do not think that what the right hon. Gentleman has just said can be allowed to pass. He has said that the composition of the new Legislative Council under this Constitution would not be so very different from what it was before. This is wholly untrue, because the composition will be that there will be at least 15—I repeat, at least 15—Africans. There may well be more. But everybody, every member of the Legislature, will have owed his seat to the voters.

Mr. Marquand: Well, we will consider that in a moment. We will consider the composition of the Legislature after referring also, for the sake of tidiness, to the powers of the Constitutional Council to examine future legislation


and to draw the attention of the Legislative Council to anything in future legislation it regards as discriminatory and as contravening the Declaration of Human Rights. It can do this, but what the hon. Gentleman has fairly enough told us is that, after all, these representations of the Constitutional Council can be rendered null and void if there is a certificate of urgency attaching to the Bill concerned; or if the Legislature itself has decided—this is terribly important—by a two-thirds majority to reject the representations and to continue it in force. That Bill will still continue in force in spite of the protests of the Constitutional Council. And, if it cannot command a two-thirds majority, all it has to do is to wait six months and pass a Bill by a simple majority. That is the position.
It is true, of course, that there is an individual right of appeal to the courts and to the Privy Council, and we were glad to hear from the hon. Gentleman this afteroon that, in circumstances where a certificate is issued by the Constitutional Council, the expenses of litigants will be paid, but this applies, if I am not mistaken, only to future legislation, not to the legislation passed before the appointed day, so that it does not constitute any safeguard beyond what exists at the moment—which is totally inadequate to this discriminatory legislation now on the statute book.
Thus, the proportion of votes in the Legislative Council becomes one of the main guarantees of the principle of non-discrimination. Everything centres in the end on the power of the Legislative Council, to which the Constitutional Council can report existing legislation which conflicts with the Declaration of Human Rights. It is the Legislative Council which will have the power to pass new legislation. It is the Legislative Council which will have the power to disregard, if it sees fit, by a two-thirds majority, or after six months by a simple majority, a recommendation of the Constitutional Council. Therefore, the Legislative Council at the end of the day is the main guarantee proposed; for which we are asked to exchange our reserve powers.
And in the Legislative Council, as has been said, nobody—I do not believe even the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton)—

expects the Africans to have one-third of the seats which alone could guarantee them the opportunity to protect their liberties against being overridden by the white majority. Two hundred thousand people will be represented by between 45 and 50 members, conceding so many to the right hon. Gentleman; 2 million by 15, 16, 17. This is utterly out of line, as I have said, with what has been done elsewhere. And this very situation, in the way I have tried to explain it, renders unacceptable the safeguards which are proposed for our acceptance as an alternative to our own reserved powers.
In the previous debate and in this one there has been some reference to the extent to which the African leaders had or had not accepted the major constitutional proposals, reserving only—it was agreed in our last debate that they did—to themselves the right to campaign for a better franchise. Well they might! They were well advised to make this reservation. They were right to say, "This is what matters most. We reserve the right to campaign for a better franchise. We do not accept these proposals."
Now the hon. Gentleman told us this afternoon that they had been able if they wished to have meetings of not more than 12 in the reserves. I know they asked—Africans have told me so themselves, some of the leaders—that they wanted to go into the reserves and explain the proposals and explain their opinion and their attitude to their people. The right hon. Gentleman will not deny this because he claimed it was so in our last debate. At that time they did show a certain degree of support for these proposals. What can we expect if after that, having gone some way to meet him, as they undoubtedly did, they were then denied the opportunity of explaining to their own people in the reserves, at meetings of reasonable size, meetings by which they could get all round the reserves and speak to substantial numbers of Africans? What are we to expect?

Mr. Patrick Wall: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the Chiefs were wholly against having political meetings in the reserves, but that they were allowed in the native purchase areas adjacent?

Mr. Marquand: That does not in any way alter the situation. The Chiefs


were against meetings, because they are appointed by the Government.
Whatever was done in February, there is no doubt, of course, that they have rejected it since. There is no doubt about that at all.
Last weekend the National Democratic Party held its Congress and decided to reject the proposals in toto. There is no question about that, and there is no question that that party represents a substantial volume of African opinion. If it did not the Minister would not have consulted it. When he was framing his constitutional proposals he recognised its representative capacity. The only other African party that I know of is far to the left of the National Democratic Party.
It seems to us that these African leaders have suffered from their own moderation. That is a very sad and dreadful thing to have happened. They have sent a letter to the Prime Minister asking whether he will see them. They see in him the embodiment and the chief representative of the sovereign to whom under the Constitution of 1923 the protection of their liberties was entrusted. They see in him the supreme authority in the United Kingdom. They met the Minister and negotiated with him, and they came to the conclusion, rightly or wrongly, that they should not negotiate with him any more.
They now say at this last crucial moment, "Will the Leader of the United Kingdom Government, the head who advises Her Majesty on all great matters of State, see us?" I hope that he will and that even now some attempt will be made to see these African leaders and discuss with them, even at this last eleventh hour, whether there is some way to improve this proposed Constitution and whether even now the Southern Rhodesian Government cannot be persuaded, or this Parliament cannot use its inalienable right to legislate for Southern Rhodesia for this purpose.
We have that inalienable right, and the right hon. Gentleman has used those words himself. Let us see whether at this eleventh hour we cannot give some assurance of better representation in the proposed Council so that the Africans can feel some confidence in that Council

as something which they can recommend, if they are so allowed, to their followers.
The Africans of Southern Rhodesia are not racialists. In talking to them I have found no hatred in their hearts. They have been in the past, and should be allowed to continue to be in the future, the best friends among Africans of the whole idea of Federation. Do not let us give cause for hatred to grow. Do not let us allow them to be led to think that their trust has been betrayed. Let us try to learn the lessons of the past and of the history of too little being done too late in Ireland, India, Cyprus and elsewhere. Let us think again. Let us take the opportunity of this debate, and let the right hon. Gentleman in speaking tonight accept the Amendment, or its spirit, and let us try again to find a decent solution.
5.15 p.m.

Mr. R. H. Turton: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) is a moderate man, holding moderate views, but in my view he has not done a good service to the Federation today, and he has made an unrealistic speech. We often forget that here in the House when we differ on these matters one represents one shade of opinion and another represents the other, but the opinions that we put forward are the moderate views in the Federation.
There is no mention of the extremist view held by the Dominion Party in Rhodesia. I have never heard that expressed in the House, but we should take it as a fact and take into consideration that the United Federal Party, under the territorial Constitution at the moment, holds a majority so slender and the substantial minority is the Dominion Party. Equally, it should be remembered that there is an extremist view which I have never heard hon. and right hon. Members opposite represent. There is the extreme wing of the National Democratic Party, which is subsidised by Communist funds and which wants to smash the Federation and drive Europeans out of Africa. I have never heard that view represented by hon. and right hon. Members opposite, but it should be remembered that if one goes out to Africa one finds that that view exists.

Mr. Stonehouse: The right hon. Gentleman has made very serious allegations about Communist funds being used to finance a political party. Would he like to substantiate those allegations before he proceeds further?

Mr. Turton: I did not realise that the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) was actually speaking for the extreme wing of the National Democratic Party, but there is abundant evidence. If the hon. Member likes to read the articles and essays published in Rhodesia on that subject, he will find ample confirmation.

Mr. Stonehouse: In reply to that innuendo, I do speak in the House not for any wing but for my own conscience and what I think to be best for all Rhodesians. If the right hon. Gentleman is to come to the House and make a prepared speech with allegations of the type he has just uttered he must give the House more satisfactory facts than apparently he possesses.

Mr. Turton: I did not realise that the hon. Member was so interested in this Communist point. We are here to put forward moderate points of view and, therefore, it is incumbent upon us that we do not by the action we take or the views we express encourage the extremists on either side in Africa today.
I have found when I have been in the Federation that, generally, the mass of the people, European and African, people of all occupations and the people one meets socially there, are very close together in their views. The ordinary people want to live happily together. They want this Federation and partnership to succeed, and that is the attitude which the House should be expressing today in debating these White Papers.
The test for the White Papers is that very remarkable gathering that took place last year, the Indaba, which was drawn not from politicians but from ordinary men in the street of all races in Rhodesia. They examined this problem. Hon. Members will find if they read the report of that National Convention presided over by Sir John Kennedy the view that disparity of representation and racial discrimination should go and that we should try to build the Constitution on a firm foundation.
In trying to judge these White Papers and the negotiations which preceded them, in view of what has happened I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend on the way in which he has conducted the negotiations and the success which has attended his efforts. He has shown pertinacity, tact and great human understanding. The negotiations have brought him into contact with men of varying views, and he has brought them to agreement even though it was not possible for that agreement to continue when they were outside the spell of his personality. That is how I interpret some of the things which have happened, but I still feel that the valuable thing that we have got is that there was a great measure of agreement on these proposals.
I want to judge these proposals in relation to two criteria. First, are they likely to make federation a success? Secondly, are they likely to attract responsible people to take responsibility in government? I feel that the success of what we are trying to do in Central Africa depends very much on those criteria. Those of us who have been in Rhodesia have been worried by the fact that there were too few responsible Africans having the vote. We have been worried by the pinpricks of racial discrimination, a subject which is far more important in the minds of most Africans than even the question of the vote. We want to ensure that these changes are brought about as quickly as possible.
The first thing we have to ascertain is how much the new alteration in the franchise will achieve. We should remember that the fact that the members of the Legislative Assembly are there only if they have the substantial backing of both races is in accord with the views expressed previously by those who have gone into the question.
I would remind the House of the Tredgold Franchise Report. The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East mentioned Sir Robert Tredgold, who, having been given the remit to ascertain how the franchise should be broadened, said that he and his Committee came to the conclusion that at present it was right to confine the franchise to those inhabitants who were capable of exercising it with reason, judgment and public


spirit. I believe that that is the right way to advance the franchise in the interests of Central Africa at the present time.

Mr. Marquand: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will have noticed the qualifications for franchise which are proposed when any referendum is held to review the Constitution. Would it not, in his view, be sensible to adopt now for the Legislature the same franchise as is proposed when there is a referendum for review of the Constitution itself?

Mr. Turton: I was coming to that on a later problem. I am at the moment dealing with the whole question of the Constitution and the franchise point.
What I am saying is that this is in line with the Tredgold franchise proposals. That commends it to me, because it was on that Report that the whole of the Federation Constitution was founded. That surely should be the test of democracy—how far responsibility is being granted to responsible people. If one hands out responsibility too fast, and it goes into irresponsible hands, one destroys democracy. I believe that that has been avoided in this case.
I will try to answer some of the right hon. Gentleman's points about the Constitutional Council. Here, I start with the National Convention. There, we had 170 Africans and Europeans, not politicians but men of good will trying to find out what should be the right Constitution for their country. It is stated on page 27 of the Report that
the majority of the Convention agreed that there should be a standing body composed of all races with the function of reviewing discriminatory legislation, both proposed and enacted 
and that
such a body should advise the Government on the repeal of legislation which has become useless or out of date.
What was being recommended—let us be absolutely clear about this—was that the Constitutional Council should be looking at prospective and existing legislation and should make recommendations to the Assembly.
What has happened here, if I am right—I hope that I shall be corrected if I am wrong—is that the Secretary of State has suggested a Constitutional Council which will have the power to veto

prospective legislation by process to the courts whereas, under the National Convention Report, it would have the power to make recommendations to the Legislative Assembly. Therefore, the Constitutional Council is given more power than that recommended by the Indaba.
I now refer to paragraphs 242 and 250 of the Monckton Report, where we find the same recommendation as in the White Papers. Paragraph 250 says that the function is
to consider existing legislation and subsidiary legislation, and, if this was found in any respect to be unfairly discriminatory, to report to the Government and the Legislature.
There, the Monckton Commission was making a similar recommendation, whereas in the White Papers we have in addition the power of veto and, under the Bill of Rights, appeal to the Privy Council. In my judgment, that is a perfectly satisfactory way of working this. It is in line with the Council of State in Kenya and the recent legislation in Nigeria and Sierra Leone.
The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East would have this not operate and would try to rely on the reserved powers. Those reserved powers have never been used. The right hon. Gentleman complains of discriminatory legislation in Rhodesia; yet what he suggests as a safeguard has never been used. It is far better to treat the Federation as other countries have been treated and to give it a Constitutional Council and a Bill of Rights.
I appeal to the people of Rhodesia to vote for the referendum on 26th July. It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to talk as they do, as if everything were easy and the referendum were bound to go through. But there will be many people agitating for the Constitution to be voted down on 26th July and it is most important that we should send out a message to the ordinary inhabitants of Southern Rhodesia, not so much the politicians as the ordinary men and women who are to vote, of our good wishes for the success of this referendum. I know that we have our differences about this matter, but they are no more than shades of opinion.
It is extremely unfortunate that right hon. and hon. Members opposite are not taking the opportunity to present the united view of the House. They have on


their shoulders a great responsibility in this matter. It would be very unfortunate if a message should go from the House to suggest that there is half-hearted support for the Constitution. This Constitution is a great advance and I hope that right hon. and hon. Members opposite will think long before they vote against the Motion or try to amend it. Among the extremists in the Federation, on both sides, and among the moderate people it may be believed that the Labour Party does not like this Constitution.

Mr. Stonehouse: Of course we do not.

Mr. Turton: The hon. Member has said it. The result will be to drive the moderate people into the views of the extremists of one side or the other. The Labour Party will be failing the country.
But if the Labour Party has responsibilities, so have Her Majesty's Government. If we are to introduce this Constitution because we believe in multiracial partnership and believe that this is a step forward, the Government should take active steps to see that multi-racial partnership is a success and not merely a White Paper. If we are to have that pace of advance in Central Africa, there will have to be far more houses for the Africans and more schools. For far too long there has been uncertainty about the constitutional future. While there is uncertainty, there is a lack of confidence, which makes it harder to raise the necessary money.

Mr. Jack Jones: Would the right hon. Gentleman send a special message to those persons who, less than a week ago, put up thousands of notices on almost every tree around Salisbury saying, "Vote no or go"—ex-members of the Conservative Party, British capital advocating the breakdown of this referendum?

Mr. Turton: I am grateful for that interjection, I am convinced that the House must send to Central Africa a message to secure the passing of the referendum. However, I was dealing with another matter.
Never before in history have the Federal Government asked for help from Her Majesty's Government, for the necessary financial backing for the housing and educational programmes. Now they

have and I am distressed that there has not been an early response to that application. India and Kenya have asked for loans and have been granted them. The motor car industry and the Cunard Shipping Company have asked for and received help. These loyal people are now anxious to try to spread the advance of Africans in Central Africa, but they have not had a quick answer. I beg the Government to think again and to think quickly and to reply with financial help during the period of uncertainty. The Federation does not ask for charity, but that during this period of uncertainty the Government will back it. The Government should not hesitate about their answer.
But that is not all; this Constitution is based on the Tredgold Report definition of franchise and the Lennox-Boyd 1958 Constitution for Northern Rhodesia. The Northern Rhodesian Constitution is now under review. I believe that it is vital for the future of the Federation that the Northern Rhodesian Constitution should be parallel with this and based on the Tredgold franchise Report and the Lennox-Boyd 1958 principles. In case there is any doubt, I remind the House that those were, first, that the Constitution should be durable, and not subject to drastic change every few years secondly, that the vote should be given to those contributing to the wealth and welfare of the country and capable of exercising it with judgment and public spirit; and, thirdly, that politics should be developed on party rather than racial lines.

Mr. Nigel Fisher: My right hon. Friend called in aid the recommendations of the Monckton Commission when he referred to the franchise in Southern Rhodesia. Would he care to call in aid the recommendations of the Monckton Commission about the franchise in Northern Rhodesia?

Mr. Turton: No, I would not. I regard the recommendations of the Monckton Commission on Northern Rhodesia as outside the scope of its remit. I believe that those recommendations have caused more trouble in Central Africa than any other part of the Monckton Report. The Monckton Commission was not charged with making that recommendation and took no


real evidence on it. It was a great tragedy that the Commission made it.
During the last few days there have been certain rumours. I agree that we should not pay too much attention to what is in the newspapers, but the rumours have been accumulating and have been to the effect that, because there have been threats of violence and a general strike, Her Majesty's Government are likely to change their policies towards Northern Rhodesia. It should be made quite clear that if that were so, by so doing the Government would be wrecking the whole Federation. I believe that if the Government think that the Constitution on which they are agreeing is in line with their principles they should go through with it and not be intimidated by threats of violence or by threat of a general strike.
It would be a very grave position it the Government were really to abdicate from responsibility because of threats of violence made by some political leaders in any part of the Federation. Such a capitulation would betray the trust and loyalty of many loyal and friendly people in Southern Rhodesia, and such a capitulation would also make these White Papers waste papers.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. John Dugdale: The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Molton (Mr. Turton) asked for unity on this matter. I find it difficult to imagine that he really believes that this could be possible because, while we respect his convictions and we know that he is sincere, we also have very strong convictions indeed which are diametrically opposed to his. It is therefore quite impossible to imagine that one can have unity on this of all subjects.
I believe, and I weigh my words very carefully, that this Constitution is not only bad but that it is positively a fraud. It is a fraud for reasons which I will explain as I go along. What is its aim? It has one aim and one only, to remove the reserve powers now exercised by Her Majesty's Government. Anything given in this Constitution is given as a quid pro quo for that. We must judge it on whether it replaces those reserve powers satisfactorily. If it does, all right, but there is grave reason to believe that it does not.
We are told that the reserve powers were never used. I think the Secretary of State would agree that reserve powers do not necessarily have to be used. The fact that they are available prevents people taking certain action which they might take if the powers were not there. It has constantly made that difference. It certainly made it during the time of the Labour Government, and, no doubt, also during the time of the Conservative Government.
The powers are of great value, and Sir Edgar Whitehead knows that they are of great value. Why is he so exercised about them? Why does he give this concession to relatively large numbers of Africans in the Legislative Council compared with the numbers before if it is not to persuade us to give up these powers? He is giving a new representation to Africans. How is that representation going to be brought about? I am very glad that it is not going to be brought about on grounds of race. It is going to be brought about on grounds of education and of property. I am proud to say that the franchise in this country is not based on education or property.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Only recently has that not been the case.

Mr. Dugdale: Of course, if the noble Lord wants to go back to the Middle Ages—

Mr. Jack Jones: If the noble Lord had his way it would still be based on property.

Mr. Dugdale: My hon. Friend is quite right.
Such increases in the franchise as there have been have, generally, been brought about by Liberal rather than Conservative votes. I only mention that because the noble Lord has got very involved in the British franchise. We certainly do not base our franchise today, nor have we done so for a considerable time, on property and education. That is the proposal that is now in this Constitution.
Africans, we are told, are not civilised. It may be that some are less educated—and it is not their fault either—than many people here. That is perfectly


true. Then why not let us take a primary education test? Suppose we were to say that each African who passed a primary education test might have a vote? Why could not that be done? That is not, in fact, being done, and it is not being done because, if it were, too many Africans would qualify. If too many Africans qualified it would upset the whole idea of Sir Edgar Whitehead's Constitution, and therefore it must not happen.
The result is that only post-primary people are to qualify, except in certain cases. How many post-primary people are there? At the moment, 4,700 are enrolled in post-primary schools. That is not a very large number when we compare it with the millions whom we are considering in the whole territory. Those and others who have been enrolled before—naturally that is not the total figure—those who had a primary education before, will be entitled to vote. The African vote is estimated to be approximately 20,000. That, I think, is the estimate of the United Federal Party. The National Democratic Party says 15,000. It is somewhere between 15,000 and 20,000—not a very large figure when we consider that it is one which is going to be fixed for a considerable number of years.
The curious thing about the Constitution—I suppose it is not so curious when one considers that it has been produced by two Conservative Governments—is that the only people who have not a very high education and who may vote are those with property. If a person has more property he needs less education. The whole thing is based on how much property or how much education a person has. The more property, the less education is needed. It is one way of governing our affairs, but it does not appeal to hon. Members on this side of the House.
How can an African have property? It is very difficult for him to acquire it. Take the native reserve land. An overwhelming amount of it is communal land, and, therefore, an African cannot buy property on it. Take the purchase areas. I believe that a few hundred Africans can have property in those areas. I would hope that many could, but I believe that only a few hundred can, in fact, have property there.
In the urban areas the position is now improving slightly because houses are being built for Africans, but the houses are being built at a lower value than would entitle their owners to a vote. The value has been set higher than the value of the houses. In fact, in the Legislature, 15 out of 65 will probably be Africans and as far as any of us can see—I hope that I may be wrong—it looks like being 15 out of 65 for a very considerable time.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: On the right hon. Gentleman's own argument, will not the franchise increase by 4,000 each year minus those who leave the register? If there are now registered at the schools 4,000 of the grades which would qualify them for a vote, will not there he 4,000 each succeeding year?

Mr. Dugdale: First of all, they have to remain at school for some considerable time. Secondly, they are only thousands, and we are thinking in terms of millions. The population is millions, not thousands.

Mr. Turton: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how he counts the population in terms of millions and not thousands?

Mr. Dugdale: I may be wrong but I have always been given to understand that the population of Rhodesia was more than a few thousand. [An HON. MEMBER: "There are 2½ million Africans."] There may not be many millions, but it is certainly millions and not thousands. I am sure that the Government would be delighted if they were to find that a new law had been passed in this country under which the Tory Party was for ever going to have a majority of three to one. That would be very satisfactory for them, and perhaps they hope for such a situation. But these fortunate white people in Southern Rhodesia are to be given it permanently, without elections and without trouble, and that will be very nice for them.

Mr. Stephen McAdden: The right hon. Gentleman has made the point two or three times that this Constitution, once enacted, will last for a long time. May I take it that he will support the Constitution, once enacted, being kept in being for a long time, despite any propositions made against it?

Mr. Dugdale: I did not say that, but the Constitution is to be drawn up by the Southern Rhodesian Government, and we understand that this House will have little say in the matter. If it is ever to be altered, it will be altered primarily by the Southern Rhodesian Government, and I cannot see the European population of Southern Rhodesia altering a Constitution such as this in a very short time.
There is also another very curious thing. It is recognised, very sensibly, by the Southern Rhodesians—they have always recognised it—that incomes rise and money values change, and that people may suddenly find that they have larger incomes because of that change. So they have carefully inserted a provision that, as the value of money rises, so people will have to have more money in order to have a vote. One cannot just have more money and obtain a vote that way. They will alter the whole basis of the vote in order to deal with the falling value of money. If money falls in value, then there will have to be a different system for voting.
This is the same sort of thing that we on this side of the House have suggested that Her Majesty's Government might do for old-age pensioners, but it is not being done. But in order to prevent many people from qualifying for a vote, which they might do if money values change, the Southern Rhodesian Government are adopting this system.
The safeguards are very important. If they are all right, then perhaps we need not worry so much about the position in the Legislative Assembly. But what are they? My right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) dealt with them, and I only say that, as far as I can see, the powers that are to be given to the Constitutional Council will make the powers of the House of Lords seem enormous. I have always thought that the House of Lords did not have very great powers, but they are infinitely greater than those to be given to the Constitutional Council. The White Paper says:
Where a Bill has been referred to the Constitutional Council, it must be accompanied by a Certificate from the Sneaker that…the Constitutional Council has reported adversely on the Bill but the Bill has been subsequently passed by a two-thirds majority of the Assembly; or

that it has been passed
by a simple majority of the Assembly after a period exceeding six months…
What could be easier? They either wait for six months for a simple majority or the Bill can be passed immediately with a two-thirds majority. As there is a two-thirds majority built into the Legislative Assembly, obviously any safeguard suggested by the Constitutional Council can be ruled out of order at once. All the legislative Assembly has to do, as far as I can see—and I hope that the Secretary of State will contradict me if I am wrong—is to overrule the Constitutional Council either at once by a two-thirds majority or in six months by a simple majority.
What matters is not what I think about the safeguards but what Her Majesty's Government think about them, however. This is very interesting. If the safeguards are good, why is there a special clause to protect stockholders? This is a curious thing. The only people who are to be protected are stockholders. Africans do not matter—they need not be protected—but we must protect stockholders. They are to have special protection because Her Majesty's Government cannot rely on the forms of protection explained in the White Paper.
I want to consider the way in which the present rulers rule Southern Rhodesia. We had an interesting insight into the sort of people they are recently from a report of a statement made by the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Salisbury and the Bishops of Gwelo, Bulawayo and Umtali, who cannot be described as Red revolutionaries. Dealing with Africans' living standards, they said:
…wages are inadequate, housing conditions in many instances are unworthy of human beings, and terms of employment are such that husbands are separated for long periods from their wives.
Such a state of affairs cries to heaven for vengeance and even in the natural order can only breed crime and chaos.
Need we wonder if men are incited to subversive activity when there is such obvious disparity in the quantity and quality of land occupied by the two major racial groups in the country?
These are the kind of conditions which are thought right by the European minority, but they are not thought right by the Roman Catholic bishops.

Mr. Farey-Jones: The right hon. Gentleman should not quote statements out of their context. He should consider the enormous improvements, carried out by the white citizens in seven years in Southern Rhodesia, in the coloured people's lot. Why does he not put that forward?

Mr. Dugdale: I do not mind reading the whole Report. I will read another paragraph. The Report went on:
They said there was no moral justification for denying on racial grounds enfranchisement to those capable of exercising it…

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Dugdale: Certainly. But there has been substituted for this racial type of enfranchisement a bad, though admittedly not so bad, system of property and education enfranchisement. The bishops have condemned the people who are now ruling Southern Rhodesia in no uncertain terms, just as Sir Robert Tredgold condemned them.
Sir Robert said that the Law and Order (Maintenance) Act outraged almost every basic human right. What is the good of having a Bill of Rights, or this wonderful declaration of human rights, when a Government can do what Sir Robert has described they did quite recently? I see no value in such declarations whatever. This one will be of singularly little value, as we shall find as time goes on.
In 1910 we made a great mistake. We gave to the white population of South Africa almost complete control over the black population, and that has proved to be a terrible mistake, as everybody on both sides of the House will agree. It seems now that it is proposed that we should do exactly the same thing to the population of Southern Rhodesia. The safeguards that are being brought in are no better in many ways than the safeguards brought in in the case of the Union. They will disappear, and I fear that they will disappear in a much shorter time than they did in South Africa. If this Bill becomes an Act, Southern Rhodesia will go the way of the Union—and this Government will send it there.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: The temptation to counter the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) in almost everything he has

said is nearly overwhelming. As he knows from previous occasions when I have followed him in debate, that I do not do so is not due to any lack of readiness to enter into controversy with him but because a number of other hon. Members want to speak, and the more equitable and more balanced view of the situation we get, the better. I do not want to stand in the way of any one of them. The second reason is that the less attention given to mischievous speeches which can only achieve an end which none of us wants the better.
I will, therefore, make only two brief points. First, about electoral qualifications. The right hon. Gentleman is not quite as ingenuous as all that. He referred to there being millions of potential votes. If one accepts a total population figure of 2½ million, unless he is proposing not only one man one vote, but one baby one vote, in no situation could it amount to millions.
It is not a matter of going back to the Middle Ages to find the situation he described. Until the 1920s in this country at least one half of the population, represented now by hon. Ladies on both sides of the House, was not enfranchised and other than ratepayers could not vote. From reading the political documents of the Opposition as well as our own, one sees that it has been generally accepted that in primitive African societies one man one vote is not a feasible proposition.
If it is said that it is unfair to judge on property, all I can say that if one takes into account property, education, and income, it is almost impossible to work out any other system for qualifying for the franchise. The right hon. Gentleman found the same difficulty when his party was in power and had to deal with this problem.
Where the principle of one man one vote has been introduced in primitive societies, it has not led to the continuance of democracy. It has led with great rapidity to dictatorial regimes far more ruthless than the outgoing colonial Power. Africa today is littered with countries which set off with the theory of one man one vote, but where the people no longer enjoy that.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is the hon. Gentleman applying that to Tanganyika?

Mr. Bennett: I will not give way again if it means having to listen to remarks like that. I said that Africa was littered with countries where there is no longer any question of one man one vote. Picking out one or two exceptions does not contradict the point that I was making.
Dealing with the insufficiency of safeguards, it was noticeable that the right hon. Gentleman was saying—

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT

6.3 p.m.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners;

The House went:—and, having returned;

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Patents and Designs (Renewals, Extensions and Fees) Act, 1961.
2. Hyde Park (Underground Parking) Act, 1961.
3. Carriage by Air Act, 1961.
4. Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1961.
5. Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act, 1961.
6. Department of Technical Co-operation Act, 1961.
7. Printer's Imprint Act, 1961.
8. Local Authorities (Expenditure on Special Purposes) (Scotland) Act, 1961.
9. Land Compensation Act, 1961.
10. Factories Act, 1961.
11. Police Pensions Act, 1961.
12. Holy Trinity Brompton Act, 1961.

Orders of the Day — SOUTHERN RHODESIA

Question again proposed.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Bennett: In my second and final reference to the speech of the right hon. Member for West Bromwich, who does not appear to have returned to his place, I was about to make only one other comment. The right hon. Gentleman criticised the ineffectiveness of the new safeguards as compared with the outgoing safeguards, yet in another part of his

speech he complained, with some justice, about the racial intolerance and discrimination in some existing legislation in Southern Rhodesia. If the right hon. Gentleman considers the existence of the old safeguards to have been so effective, it is strange to understand how, in another part of his speech, he can complain that the former laws have been discriminatory from a racial point of view.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: Dr. J. Dickson Mabon (Greenock) rose—

Mr. Bennett: I am sorry, I must get on with my speech. In any event, it is for the right hon. Member for West Bromwich, who has not yet decided to return to his place, to defend himself, and not leave it to others to do so.
I am particularly delighted to have had the chance of making a contribution to this debate, because, possibly, I am the only hon. Member who has actually lived in the country concerned as opposed to visiting it. I lived there for a time after the war, and, had my private family developments been different, I might still have been living there. There were many things then that I loved about Southern Rhodesia. There were some that I abhorred deeply. Those which I abhorred most deeply were the racial discriminations based upon race alone, with particular reference to the many social pinpricks that then existed. The term "pinpricks" is a rather unfortunate one when used here, because, to those at the wrong end of the pin, it appears to be a very unpleasant weapon.
Since my return from Southern Rhodesia, I have paid frequent visits out there. If hon. Member opposite occasionally think that I could be regarded as being strongly against them and reactionary on these matters, I can only say that when I have been out there I have equally been criticised for being almost a member of the Labour Party by some Rhodesian politicians with whom I have argued. On many occasions, I have entered into active controversy even with Sir Edgar Whitehead himself, who, certainly at one stage, asked how I could be a member of the Conservative Party. I say this to show my strict impartiality and, I hope, my pragmatic approach to the problems of that country.
If I had been told, even two or three years ago, that this degree of constitutional and political advance was coming, even though some may not consider it nearly large enough or fast enough, I simply would not have believed that it could so soon be achieved. So, once again, I congratulate not only my right hon. Friend but the Southern Rhodesia statesmen who intend to bring this Constitution into being in the near future.
My opinion is that the new safeguards do not mean any reduction in the security of the African population. I am convinced, otherwise I would not be speaking in support in the way I am, that the new safeguards are, indeed, stronger than those which now exist, because for a whole variety of reasons, as hon. Members opposite recall from the time when their Government were in power and as we on this side know, the ultimate power of the United Kingdom to intervene in local legislation in a country which has been virtually independent since 1923 has not been able to be used. Now we are to have safeguards which are written into the Constitution, in which there is a judicial as well as a political element coming into it, and if hon. Members and the population out there will look at these safeguards pragmatically, and as they stand, and compare them with what has been changed, I am sure that they could not, fairmindedly, be other than pleased at what has happened
I do not like their idea of this being a quid pro quo. I think that it is very ungenerous to a large number of very liberal-minded Southern Rhodesians, who, for a long time have been trying, over a wide variety of fields, constitutional and otherwise, to get advances towards a non-racial society. It may be said that 15 African members of Parliament is not enough. It may be that many of us would like to see rather more, but, even a year ago, the most liberal-minded Southern Rhodesian that I have met would hardly have looked forward to being able to have 15 so quickly, and many were hoping to get only two, three or four after the next election.
I have said that when I read this draft Constitution for the first time I was not only surprised but very gratified that such a large advance had proved possible at this time, and, more important, that it

had been found possible to avoid some of the political developments based on race which I have regretted in certain other African territories. Here, the system is not to have so many people because they are black and so many people because they are white. We are, in Southern Rhodesia following their traditional lines, that the society should be developed, politically and socially, on non-racial lines.
I hope, too, that now that these constitutional changes are being made the tempo of the removal of the remaining social distinctions based on race alone will be speeded up, because I am quite sure that I carry the House with me here in saying that it is not enough for Africans today merely to have constitutional and political rights. They feel just as deeply about social discriminations which are carried out against them, and, in fact, in many cases, even more deeply.
What is likely to be the effect of criticism here, such as that we have had from the benches opposite, including the right hon. Member for West Bromwich, who, I am glad to see, has returned to his place, if this division was carried into the Lobbies tonight and the Constitution was turned down? The net result would be that there would not be these changes at all, in which case we should go back to the situation in which there would be no African members in the local House of Commons at all. If hon. Members opposite think that 15 is too few, do they really want to return to the situation in which there is none at all, because the logical consequence of their policy must mean only that.
However, we can rely on the fact that there are sufficient balanced Members on both sides of the House to make sure that the Division is not lost in the Lobbies tonight. Therefore, let us look at the more limited effects of what even ineffective criticism in a constitutional sense will bring about. At the moment, Sir Edgar Whitehead will not have an easy time in getting the referendum through, for there are those in Southern Rhodesia who believe that this pace is too fast. If we criticise too much in this House—and I appeal to hon. Members opposite to realise the validity of this argument—we do not help the moderates over there. On the contrary, we help


those who are doing their very best to make sure that the referendum is defeated.

Mr. Richard Marsh: The hon. Gentleman has made this point several times, and it is a rather serious point. Is he suggesting that Members of this House of Commons should not say those things which they feel strongly because it might be embarrassing to another Government? Surely the point is that Members of this House have a responsibility for this Constitution and have a duty to say what they think about it.

Mr. Bennett: I am only saying that hon. Members of this House, when they claim to be trying to help any particular cause in the world, should bear in mind the great responsibility for the consequences of what they have to say. No one is trying to stop people from saying what they want to say.
At the moment, strong criticism by this House can have two possible effects out there. It will encourage those Europeans racialists who want to see the referendum lost, and it will encourage antagonism among Africans, who will say that they hear from this House of Commons that this is an unfair and wrong Constitution. If hon. Members opposite, having made their speeches, do not mind that, it is their responsibility, but none can deny that the effect of their criticism will be precisely that which I have outlined.
I am not normally afraid of political controversy in this House, but, instead, I should like to feel, in so far as it is possible, that we should today bend our efforts towards reaching a solution here which will encourage a favourable answer to the referendum in a few weeks' time. I think that any other course would only do harm to the cause which we intend to try to serve.
There is an additional need to be careful at present, since it is very easy, as I have said before in other debates, to be completely high-minded, liberal and progressive when living in this country. But we have seen only quite recently, with only a fraction of the racial stress which these people have to live with, how rapidly people here can become intolerant. I therefore ask hon.

Members opposite to realise the emotional stresses, in view of the developments taking place in the Congo and elsewhere. The fact that Southern Rhodesia is taking this marked step forward, even though some hon. Members think that it is not fast enough, towards a more liberal policy at the same time as those in the Union of South Africa are going in the other direction is a tribute to the traditional good sense and balance of our countrymen who are now living in Southern Rhodesia.
Moreover, there is another reason for praising the behaviour of the Southern Rhodesians in this attempt to get these constitutional changes made effective. It is because, unlike elsewhere in Africa, where the European minority is driven by the force of events into making these changes in policy, there are sufficient Europeans in Southern Rhodesia at the present time who, if they choose to be deliberately repressive along the lines of the Union of South Africa, even if only for a comparatively short time, they could do it. The need for particular praise for the Southern Rhodesian Government, and for particular pleasure about, and not condemnation of, the constitutional changes which have been announced, is that in Southern Rhodesia liberal-minded men and women are voluntarily making changes in accord with the differing mood in Africa. The message that goes out from this House tonight should be one of encouragement to them, and not the opposite.

6.28 p.m.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: I am glad that the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett) has admitted that legislation discriminating against Africans is in operation at present in Southern Rhodesia because this is one of the factors relevant to our consideration today, as I shall try to show in my speech. I begin by admitting freely to the hon. Member that, of course, there are certain elements of advance in the Constitution before us today. These elements of advance are the price which the Europeans in Southern Rhodesia are prepared to pay in order to get their full independence from what they like to call interference from this country. The whole purpose of our debate is to decide whether the price which the Europeans are prepared to pay is liberal enough.
The provisions of the White Papers which we have before us are very complicated and I think that we all may become confused in the mass of detail which is contained in them. But I suggest to the House that the issue which we are considering today is, in essence, a very simple one. It is that the United Kingdom at present has reserve powers entrusted to it for the protection of the African in Southern Rhodesia, and the main element of the constitutional proposals which we have before us is the demand by the Europeans in Southern Rhodesia that these reserve powers should he given up.
I think it relevant that these White Papers did not originate because the Europeans in Southern Rhodesia suddenly wanted to give constitutional advance to the Africans. It was not their recommendation that the time had come to take the plunge. It is rather that the Europeans—Sir Edgar Whitehead has made this clear—wanted to get rid of the United Kingdom's reserve powers. They knew that they could not do so unless they offered something in exchange. So this is not really a constitutional reform on behalf of the African. It is an attempt to break the last constitutional link of Parliamentary control with the British House of Commons.
The third element in this simple issue is that the Government are arguing that it is perfectly safe for us to give up our reserve powers because the quid pro quo offered to the African in exchange is perfectly adequate. I am sure that every hon. Member is aware of the great responsibility which lies upon him today. Let us remember that we have had to do this before. Let us remember that we did it in the case of South Africa where the situation had many similar elements. There was discriminatory legislation in existence against an African majority, just as the hon. Member for Torquay has admitted that there is discriminatory legislation in Southern Rhodesia today against the Africans.
In the case of South Africa there was also a situation in which Parliament and Governmental power was in the hands of a white minority. That is the situation in Southern Rhodesia today. Yet, in an act of trust and faith, the British

House of Commons handed over this power to that white minority without adequate safeguards that the African majority could progressively come into the full flower of its rights. The results, as we all know, have been disastrous. I do not think that any of us want on our consciences the responsibility of creating, perhaps, in Southern Rhodesia a successor to the unhappy situation in South Africa. Therefore, we cannot just lightly say that we will hand over all power and responsibility. We must test and retest the adequacy of the safeguards.
In doing so, I start from another simple principle which is, do the people at present under our protection want that power to be transferred from us to Southern Rhodesia? The Minister has two answers to this, or rather—I am sorry, I must not prejudge what the right hon. Gentleman has to say—

Mr. Sandys: That would be very helpful to my speech.

Mrs. Castle: No doubt the right hon. Gentleman can plagiarise in due course. He is welcome.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State gave us two answers to this. In the first place, he had to admit that the National Democratic Party, the mass party of the Africans in Southern Rhodesia, had declared its total hostility to these White Papers. As the hon. Gentleman has told us so often before in these situations, he said that the N.D.P. does not represent African opinion. Whenever we quote African opinion we are told that the voice which has expressed it is, somehow, not representative. We were given the views of a few chiefs instead as the democratic voice of the African.
I am not denying that the chiefs have a right to be heard, but I wish to suggest that there is a very simple way in which to find out whether the people now under our protection want that protection to be taken away. It is to hold a referendum of the African people. Surely, neither the Joint Under-Secretary nor the Secretary of State would be afraid of that. But there is not to be any such referendum. This is one of the intrinsically undemocratic factors in the situation which we are discussing this afternoon.
The National Democratic Party has denounced this as a white man's agreement. Unfortunately, it will only be put to the test of a white man's referenrum, because, of course, the referendum to be held to find out whether this constitutional change is acceptable to the people of Southern Rhodesia is not even to be held on the basis of the new and more extended franchise to which, we are told, the African is now fully entitled by reason of his progress and his advance. No. The referendum is to be held on the basis of the existing franchise which we all now busily denounce as out of date. Even the hon. Member for Torquay, I hope, will not support the status quo. Yet it is on the basis of the status quo—

Mr. F. M. Bennett: The hon. Lady keeps making reference to what I will or will not do. The report of my speech will show tomorrow what I have been saying. As to racially discriminatory laws, I said that in the context of the old United Kingdom controls not being so good as the present ones, but in any case these discriminatory laws are, happily, already being abolished in that country.

Mrs. Castle: I assure the hon. Member that I am about to deal with that piece of wishful thinking.
I return to the point from which I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Torquay wishes to distract the attention of the House, namely, that the referendum is to be held on the basis of the existing franchise. If I understood the speech of the Under-Secretary aright, he told us that those entitled to vote are the members on the present registration roll. I think he said that there were 84,000 voters registered, of whom 4,000 are Africans. Yet it is on that test of opinion that we who pride ourselves on our great record of protection towards these colonial people are to base the decision of whether we give up that protection. I would point out to the Secretary of State that the Africans, having caught a little of the infection of democracy from us, are suggesting that they could hold a much more democratic referendum.
The N.D.P. has announced that it will hold a referendum of its own. If that

referendum shows an overwhelming opposition by the African people to this transfer of powers from us to the Southern Rhodesian Government—just as the African people showed overwhelming opposition to the imposition of Central African Federation two years ago—will the Secretary of State learn from the lessons and mistakes of the past and accept that the African people do not want the constitutional changes which are being proposed tonight?
The Minister had a second answer on this point which I thought was a rather typically British paternalistic one. For a gentleman of such youth I think he brings to a fine are the atmosphere of paternalism. He told us that the Africans did not understand how well they would be safeguarded by these provisions. He knew that they were safeguarded. I know he is a warm-hearted and honourable man. He was perfectly satisfied that the safeguards for somebody else were perfectly adequate, but there was lack of understanding by them.

Mr. Sandys: When did I say that?

Mrs. Castle: I am talking of the younger of the two hon. Gentlemen.

Mr. Braine: I must resist the hon. Lady's blandishments. She is assuming all the time that the National Democratic Party speaks for all Africans in this context. Probably that party speaks for a great many. She has mentioned that the National Democratic Party is to hold a referendum of its own in the African areas and she has asked me to express a view on that. It does not fall to me to do so. The Central African Party, which has substantial African support, has come out decidedly against that proposal, and will campaign against it. I do not join issue on that, but the hon. Lady must not base her case on the assumption that one set of African politicians necessarily reflects African views. If she does so, she is wrong.

Mrs. Castle: Of course the hon. Gentleman might be right. I only suggest to him that even one set of Africans would more adequately represent African views than would one set of Europeans. Only the Europeans, apart from 4,000 registered Africans, are to vote on the acceptability of this situation.

Mr. Victor Goodhew: Mr. Victor Goodhew (St. Albans) rose—

Mrs. Castle: I am sorry, I cannot give way again. When I get so interrupted I have to speak for a long time, and that is not fair to other hon. Members. I have given way several times. Perhaps I may be allowed to go on for a little longer before giving way again.
I suggest that it is not very surprising that the Africans are hesitant about these safeguards. Southern Rhodesia has had self-government for nearly forty years. During that period that Government have had every opportunity for giving expression to the sort of relationship they want with the Africans. Yet here we are at the end of nearly forty years of European Southern Rhodesian rule without a single African representatives in the Legislature. If that is what forty years of self-government without interference by this House in many fields has done in Southern Rhodesia, can the Government of Southern Rhodesia be surprised that some of us need a little reassuring before we finally cut the cord of our control?
The truth, as all realistic politicians know, is that no minority abdicates voluntarily. It has to be pushed. Therefore, the test which we have to apply is not that of fair words or fine promises made by anyone. We have to discuss what power this new Constitution transfers to the Africans. What power will reside in this new Constitution to enable government in due course, not immediately, to pass from the white minority to the African majority?
The Under-Secretary has told us he is satisfied that the road forward in this direction is clear and that there cannot be any blockages on that road by the provisions of these White Papers. He quotes the Declaration of Rights which guarantees freedom of discussion, freedom of speech and expression—and therefore, of agitation—with no discrimination on grounds of race, colour tilt creed. If from now on that were to be the basis of Government in Southern Rhodesia I should be very much persuaded and certainly play my part in persuading the Africans, but I think every one of us who is fair-minded will agree that the present situation in Southern Rhodesia in these respects is the worst in the whole Commonwealth.
Protests against denying these rights to the Africans have been pouring in over the past eighteen months. They came from the Monckton Commission, from the Central Africa Party, from the British Council of Churches and from moderate European newspapers such as the Central African Examiner. I shall burden the House with one quotation which I think tremendously important. It appeared in a "Survey of the Crisis in Southern Rhodesia" published by the Central African Examiner last summer. That was just at the height of the disturbances after the sudden arrest by Sir Edgar Whitehead of the three leaders of the N.D.P. and the rioting which followed. The newspaper pointed out:
Sir Edgar Whitehead has, of course, been concerned to emphasize that arrests had been made according to law and not in the exercise of any arbitrary executive power not sanctioned by ordinary law. Unfortunately, however, 'the due process of law' and arbitrary action by the Government are not necessarily incompatible under the statute law of Southern Rhodesia, Certain statutes permit the government in effect arbitrarily, to curtail the fundamental liberties of the individual to a considerable degree, not by taking extraordinary or emergency powers for the purpose, but 'in the ordinary course of law'.
The paper then quotes a succession of these Acts. There is the Unlawful Organisations Act, 1959, which contains the express provision, for example, that actions taken under that Act shall not be open to question in any court of law. The paper mentions the Preventive Detention (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1959, the Subversive Activities Act, 1950, the Public Order Act, 1955, all of which by due process of law give the Government of Southern Rhodesia massive powers to interfere with ordinary political organisations and activities.
I am not quoting at the moment the mass of additional legislation which Sir Edgar then tried to rush through the Southern Rhodesian Legislature in order to deal with the rioting which his own actions provoked. Some of those—for instance, the Vagrancy Act and various others whose names I forget—caused such an outcry in Southern Rhodesia among white liberals that some of their provisions have had to be modified. I am not sufficiently au fait with the position to know to what extent they have been modified.
I remember Sir Edgar making a speech, which was quoted in the


Guardian. He said that he intended to take repressive powers. It runs as follows in the Guardian report:
He intended to override 'the well-known legal objections' and introduce minimum sentences for certain grave offences which have become prevalent of late'. He instanced the throwing of stones at moving cars which is tantamount to attempted murder'. The minimum sentence would be five years' imprisonment.
I was very interested in that proposal, because one of the provisions of the White Paper which we are asked to applaud this afternoon is that a Member of the Legislative Assembly can be disqualified for membership if he is found guilty of a criminal offence subjecting him to more than six months' imprisonment. There could be a vicious circle in which a wrong-minded Government by due process of law could so interfere with the rights of political agitation as to make it possible for Members of the Legislative Assembly to be imprisoned and disqualified for what in other countries and in other circumstances would be considered perfectly normal political agitation.
Sir Edgar's actions at that time were criticised by moderate whites as well as moderate Africans. What we need to know this afternoon before we transfer power to the Southern Rhodesian Government is this. The safeguards we want are not against the introduction of more repressive and more discriminatory legislation in future. Surely Sir Edgar will not become more repressive and more discriminatory. The safeguards we want are guarantees that the existing repressive and discriminatory legislation will be removed before we transfer the protection of Africans from us to that Government.
What have we got in this respect? We have not a single thing. On the contrary, there is the express provision that there shall be no right of appeal under the Declaration of Rights to the courts in respect of any existing legislation. If that is not a hole large enough to drive all the chariots of repression through, I do not know what could be larger.
Bearing in mind the unhappy history of white minority government in Southern Africa, we should say this afternoon that we will not surrender our reserved powers before existing legislation in Southern Rhodesia which is in-

compatible with the Declaration of Rights is removed. Unless we do that, we shall make a mockery of the whole inclusion of the Declaration of Rights and get the white man labelled as a hypocrite across the length and breadth of Africa.
The second safeguard to which the Joint Under-Secretary referred is that under this Constitution there is wider enfranchisement of the African. He will get 15 seats at least out of the 65, but only 15 for sure. An hon. Member opposite interrupted my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand), and said that it was hoped that it would be 18. It is not sure. We should write into the Constitution guarantees, not hopes that may be unfulfilled.
I want again to ask a very simple question. Why was the number 15 chosen? What validity has it as a number? What is it supposed to measure? Is it supposed to measure the level of civilisation of the African? If so, why not 14, 16 or some other number? The answer is very clear: it is 15 because that is less than one-third of the membership of the Legislative Assembly and therefore it effectively takes away from the African the power to check any flouting by the Legislative Assembly of the recommendations of the Constitutional Council about legislation violating the Declaration of Rights.
As the Guardian pointed out recently, if we want to be able to sell this sorry mess of constitutional pottage a little more convincingly than the Joint Under-Secretary was able to display this afternoon, it should have contained the provision that African membership of the Legislative Council was to be at least 22. That is what the Government should have done if they wanted to prove the genuineness of their intentions. This is quite apart from the fact that the whole Declaration of Rights can be swept aside on the say-so of the Government that a state of emergency must be declared. The Constitution offered to us is full of loopholes which an unscrupulous Assembly could exploit.
I ask the Secretary of State to answer when replying one nagging worry which is in my mind. I see that statutory instruments promulgated under laws have no real check upon them in relation to


the Declaration of Rights. I assume that there is no appeal to the courts against a statutory instrument. If I am wrong I shall be glad to be corrected. Here all that the Constitutional Council can do is wring its hands. It has not even got a delaying power.

Sir Lionel Heald: Paragraph 15 says:
Any law, regulation, by-law, or other subsidiary legislation, passed after the enactment of the new Constitution, will be invalid if it contravenes the provisions of the Declaration of Rights…

Mrs. Castle: I am very glad to have that doubt removed, if that is the correct interpretation.

Sir L. Heald: The hon. Lady has not read it.

Mrs. Castle: I frankly admit that the highly constitutional wording of some of these documents is very difficult to comprehend exactly. As I am not a lawyer I am not expressing myself dogmatically.

Mr. Stonehouse: Has my hon. Friend looked at Cmnd. 1400 which clearly says, on page 42, that if the law in question were
in force immediately before the appointed day
it is excluded from the provisions of the Bill of Rights?

Mrs. Castle: I thought that that would be so, but I was dealing with fresh Statutory Instruments.
There is another loophole in the Constitution. An amendment to the Constitution can be carried through by a two-thirds majority of the Legislative Assembly, except for the entrenched clauses, in which there is a further appeal to referenda which are properly conducted among all the races, but the composition of the Assembly is not among the entrenched clauses. The franchise is, but the composition of the Assembly is not.
By the terms of the White Paper care has been taken to make sure that two-thirds of the Legislative Assembly shall be white, and that Legislative Assembly, if it wishes, can reduce the number of electoral districts and increase the number of constituencies. These consequences are very similar to the provi-

sions of the present Constitution relating to the devaluation of the vote. It means that the Legislative Assembly could devalue African constituencies if too many Africans began to register on the "A" roll. Why should not the composition of the Assembly, which is of such great importance from the point of view of the possession of power, be included among the entrenched clauses?
We are asked on the basis of this Constitution to say that the safeguards are complete and that the road forward to African advance is clear. Let us not forget the words of Sir Edgar Whitehead, in speaking of these constitutional provisions. He said that under the proposed two electoral rolls,
Parliament in this country will remain for all time in the control of people with upper-roll qualifications.

Mr. Wall: Does not the hon. Lady agree that the upper roll is a non-racial roll and that in ten to fifteen years it will become a predominantly African roll?

Mrs. Castle: There are two answers to that. First, I do not accept a qualification as satisfactory purely because it is non-racial. There are other elements than race included in the exercise of democracy. If in this country we applied the kind of economic and educational qualifications which Sir Edgar proposes for all time in Southern Rhodesia, we should not consider ourselves a democracy and we should hardly be regarded at the moment as the Mother of Parliaments.
Secondly, the hon. Member says that this will automatically happen in ten or fifteen years. Will it? What guarantee is there in the Constitution that the upper roll will eventually be determined by Africans? It will depend first and foremost on the distribution of the land. I know that the Land Apportionment Act has been amended. The bribe offered to the House has been, "We give you 5 million acres and you give us a free hand to control the future of the franchise and the Africans' qualifications to vote."
We must go much further than that before we can say that the African will dominate the upper roll. As Mr. Malianga, Deputy-President of the National Democratic Party, pointed out


in connection with the franchise proposals, under the new Constitution Africans could be permanently excluded from the vote. They could not own property in the native reserves—it is held communally—and they were not allowed to own property in the towns. The property qualifications for the franchise were therefore valueless. At the level at which they might be effective—ownership of property of the value of £250—they were combined with educational qualifications—two years' secondary education—which would cancel them out. Education was so bad in Southern Rhodesia that last year only 677 people reached the post-primary standard.
What this means is that the pace at which the African can advance, if he advances at all, will be governed by the extent to which the Land Apportionment Act is amended and the extent to which educational opportunities are given to him. But those are not the subject of guarantees under the Constitution. They will be entirely political acts, which will depend upon the Legislative Assembly.
All we know at the moment when we are asked to transfer power is that we are asked to transfer it to a Legislative Assembly with only 15 African members out of 65 members. They will be powerless to push through the very amendments which would open the gate to them to take full control of the upper roll. If any hon. Member believes that if we transfer power to the white minority now they will not use it to keep that gate sufficiently closed to perpetuate them in power, then he is ignoring all the lessons of history. It is because those lessons of history warn us in such grim ways today that we on this side of the House say that the safe- guards are inadequate.

7.8 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: The hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) put forward her views to the House with her usual sincerity. I know that she holds them very sincerely, but I submit that they are based far more on theory than on fact. She says, in effect, that we in this country have control of affairs in Southern Rhodesia and that we are passing this control

over to the European minority, who will immediately, to use the current phrase, sell the Africans down the river.
I suggest that this view is based on two fallacies. First, we have not control over Southern Rhodesia at present. Southern Rhodesia has been virtually self-governing internally since 1923. We can disallow legislation but we have not done so in those 37 years. We can legally suspend the Constitution, but does she really think that we could actually do so over some important issue over which Southern Rhodesians felt strongly? She and many of her hon. Friends disagreed with some of the actions of the Southern Rhodesian Government in passing certain legislation a year or two ago, for example, the Vagrancy Act. That was not disallowed. Does she really believe that the power which we have over Southern Rhodesia today is anything but purely nominal?
The second part of her theory is that the Europeans are today using this Constitution as a trick to secure power for themselves and that when they have it they will use it to set the clock back. I submit that the history of Southern Rhodesia in the past few years has shown that the Europeans have recognised the fact that the Africans will inevitably gain the major share of political control in Southern Rhodesia within the comparatively near future. We have mentioned 15 years. Does the hon. Lady really think that anybody in the world today, and in the Continent of Africa as it is today, can get away with trying to screw down all the safety valves? I think that she was totally misconstruing the whole position in Southern Rhodesia—

Mr. Stonehouse: If the hon. Gentleman has so much faith in the Europeans in Southern Rhodesia, can he explain why a former Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia came to this country to ask for its Constitution to be suspended because of the acts of Sir Edgar Whitehead?

Mr. Wall: Mr. Garfield Todd came here with one or two Africans late one night and asked for the Constitution to be suspended. It was not suspended. There was an intense political atmosphere at the time, and I rather think that Mr. Garfield Todd now rather regrets his impetuosity, because he had


to resign the leadership of his party and has since taken no further part in political life I regret that, because I have great respect for him and for what he did for his country. I hope that he will come back into its political life in the future. That, however, is not a very good illustration of a successful attempt to make us use the controls we have.
The hon. Lady tried to equate what has happened in Southern Rhodesia with what is happening in South Africa. That is unjust and unfair. In South Africa, we have Dr. Verwoerd imposing one of the most evil laws ever imposed, designed deliberately to restrict the level of education allowed to Africans. In Southern Rhodesia, there is the largest percentage of Africans in primary schools of any part of independent Africa.
In South Africa, Bills have recently been introduced to preclude representation in Parliament by members of the coloured races, or of Europeans representing the Africans. In Southern Rhodesia, we have the Government's own suggestion that 15 seats should immediately be made available for Africans. In the Union of South Africa, we have the removal of the very small amount of freehold land that the Africans hold, for example, in Sophia-town. In Southern Rhodesia, we have the suggestion in this Constitution that Africans should be able to hold freehold land. Southern Rhodesia is marching in a direction completely opposite to that taken by the Republic of South Africa.
One of my grouses against the organs that influence public opinion—particularly, perhaps, the Press—is that they tend to classify hon. Members as being "pro" or "anti" almost everything. One is either pro-Common Market or pro-Commonwealth, or pro-European or pro-African. I am sure that the hon. Lady is known as pro-African and that after this speech I may be labelled pro-European, but I see that we have both signed the same letter on the Common Market, so perhaps we do think alike at times.
I am quite sure that no hon. Member wants to be labelled pro-African or pro-European. I certainly want to be pro-Rhodesian. I have visited the country on many occasions to try to make up my own mind which is right, and in my

view the proposals in the White Paper represent a move forward, and I fully support it for three main reasons.
First, I believe that it is the beginning of the end of discrimination. It does not abolish it—I grant the hon. Lady that. We cannot do that automatically and immediately, but it is the beginning of the end of any form of racial discrimination in Southern Rhodesia. Secondly, it leads to growing participation by Africans in Parliament and in political life. Thirdly, it means the election of Members of Parliament who are responsible to both races, and when a Member is responsible to both races he has to consider the views of both. That is one of the most important proposals in this new Constitution.
I know that both Mr. Joshua Nkomo and Mr. Paul Moshonga view the proposals doubtfully. I have received literature and letters representing the views of their two parties, and I know and appreciate that their parties have doubts about this Constitution. I have tried to classify these doubts. Two of them are mentioned in the Opposition's Amendment to the Government's motion.
Their first doubt is over representation and the franchise; whether 15 African seats compared with 50 for the Europeans is justified. I would only say that this proportion of 15 to 50 is one not of black to white but of upper roll to lower roll, and the point that I made in an interjection earlier this afternoon is that the upper roll will inevitably become a majority African roll in the not too distant future and race will therefore disappear altogether. The seats are not exclusively European and African. Indeed, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) said, it is most likely that when this Constitution goes through the result of the next General Election will be that there will be at least 18 black faces in the House of Parliament in Salisbury, and that number will increase as the years go on.
It is not that proportion of seats that I want now to discuss so much as the question of the franchise, because I do not think that has been sufficiently emphasised in this debate so far. We are told that there are now some 4,500 African registered voters in Southern Rhodesia. I would remind the House


that the broad estimate given of the number of Africans who could have exercised their vote had they registered is from 20,000 to 25,000. They have not bothered to register, which is a great pity. Both sides of the House have before now called on them to do this—

Mr. Callaghan: It has been said once or twice that there is a prospect of Africans getting at least 18 seats, and I have been trying to puzzle that out. Would the hon. Gentleman explain it?

Mr. Wall: The lower roll has a 25 per cent. effect on the upper roll seats, and one may well get an African nominated there. There are a number of Africans already in the majority party, in the Central Africa Party apart from the wholly African parties, and if they pull their weight more Africans will be able to be elected. However, I do not want to pursue this; I want to discuss the actual franchise—

Mr. Callaghan: We might as well get this cleared up. If that is the basis of the argument, one can argue that Europeans, whose votes are to count for 25 per cent. in the lower roll, may well be elected there. I do not follow this figure of 18, and I must say that the hon. Gentleman has not even begun to convince me.

Mr. Wall: The point is that the people of Southern Rhodesia are gradually losing their racial consciousness, though perhaps not yet fast enough, and I think that we can get to a position when a predominantly African roll will elect white faces, and vice versa, and I am sure that that is an aim for which both the hon. Gentleman and all of us are working.
There are at present about 4,500 African electors, and there could be about 20,000 or 25,000. The best estimate I can get of the number of African voters under the proposals in the White Paper is 60,000. That was the figure given by Sir Edgar Whitehead at a Press conference in Salisbury. He said that it was guesswork, but his estimate was about 60,000 African voters. We are therefore very greatly increasing the number of Africans who will have the vote and so have influence on both rolls.
The upper roll has been modified—admittedly to a comparatively minor degree—to allow votes to go to chiefs and headmen, but the lower roll has been modified considerably, not only by the earnings qualification being reduced from the previous two-year period to one of six months, but by four new categories of people being enfranchised on that roll. Therefore, any fear of a permanent continuance of European domination is absolute nonsense. It could not happen under the new Constitution.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) talked of the upper roll, but I would remind him that in Northern Rhodesia the upper roll is already 13 per cent. non-European. That is the kind of thing that will happen in Southern Rhodesia. I maintain that the Europeans there recognise that in due course the Africans will have political control. What they are interested in is not trying to preserve white faces in Parliament but to preserve power in responsible hands. I am suggesting that that will happen as a result of this Constitution and that the transfer of political power will take perhaps 10 to 15 years.
The second point Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Moshonga raise in their correspondence is that there is no provision for acting against discriminatory legislation already on the Statute Book. This matter has already been aired in the House, and it has already been pointed out that the Constitutional Council will consider existing legislation, and, further, that the United Kingdom Government at the moment cannot amend these existing laws. In other words, while the British Government cannot act the new Council can.
I was recently told about certain plans in Southern Rhodesia for removing discriminatory legislation that exists at present. For example, the University has made a good start, and plans are now being drawn up to make senior technical schools, sports clubs, and so on completely non-racial. The hotels are now becoming non-racial, and there are plans to open up a centre in Salisbury in which the training will be non-racial. Perhaps most important of all is a plan to put all housing and local government on the same racial basis, Africans and Europeans alike to be dealt with under one


Ministry, and to abolish the Ministry of African Affairs. This is something that the majority of Africans have been advocating for some time and was recommended by the National Convention.
Thirdly, there is the question of land. Africans dislike the Land Apportionment Act, and unfortunately, also speak against the Land Husbandry Act, which has done more to raise the standards of agriculture in Southern Rhodesia than any other piece of legislation. Now, of course, the Land Apportionment Act is being repealed. Two million acres of land are already affected under legislation now going through the Parliament in Salisbury, and this land has been transferred from European to African ownership. A start is being made with a new category of unreserved land, with 5½ million acres being involved. The intention is that companies will develop land for major industrial or factory sites, and so on, and that the land will become unreserved land and will be completely multi-racial and will be added to the total of land to be developed by all races. Gradually, the unreserved land will extend until, perhaps, it will include the majority of all land in Southern Rhodesia.
The present figures are as follows—forest land 10 million acres, African land 44½ million acres and European land 38 million acres. In other words, there is now more land in African than in European occupation. I appreciate, in having said that, that some hon. Gentlemen opposite will say "Yes, but there are more Africans than Europeans." The point is that those figures illustrate that the trend is in the right direction. And it must be remembered that, in addition to these figures, 5½ million acres of unreserved land must he added to the total.
That trend to treat all areas alike will continue, and there are plans in existence, I understand, to change the function of the Native Affairs Department to an advisory capacity and to treat Africans in rural areas under the same Ministry as Europeans are at present dealt with. All this is going to remove the fears about discriminatory legislation in the future and fears that land might be taken away from the Africans to be given to the Europeans.
Fourthly, I would mention the subject of the value of the reserved powers, but

this has already been discussed by hon. Members on both sides and I do not propose to develop the argument further. I would merely add the remarks that the powers which we have at the moment are not nearly as solid as hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to think and that the powers contained in the new Constitution give good guarantees for the future.
The question of consent of the African parties has been raised. In the beginning the N.D.P. consented to this Constitution, and this should be made absolutely clear. Further, the Central African Party, which has a large African membership—in fact, the majority of its membership is African—also agreed with the proposed Constitution. The U.F.P. itself has a large number of African supporters. The only party that did not agree was the Dominion Party, which is a European party and has virtually no African supporters. Therefore, one can confidently say that the measure of consent on behalf of African people was at a high level when this matter first came under discussion.
It is true that the National Democratic Party had second thoughts. But why? Those second thoughts were largely due to the pressure of the trades unions, recently assisted by American money, trying to move the whole of the National Democratic Party to the left and trying to undermine the leadership of Mr. Nkomo. It was also due to tribalism becoming unfortunately an important factor as in so many African parties and so many other parts of the continent.

Mr. Marsh: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that American official influence is being applied to Southern Rhodesian African trades unions, with financial assistance, to move them to the left? Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that one of the good features of the new emerging trade union movement there is the fact that it is not a political movement?

Mr. Wall: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The trade union movement has been responsible and has not indulged in politics in the past. I am not saying that America has done this deliberately, but now the unions are better off and better organised they are moving into the political field and are now taking more interest in the extreme


wing of the National Democratic Party than they are in running trades unions. That has also happened in other parts of Africa.
There is also the question of intimidation. This has been raised time and again, and as hon. Gentlemen opposite have quoted from the document Pastoral Instruction of the Catholic Bishops of Southern Rhodesia, I also wish to quote one paragraph from that document. This is what the bishops say:
For instance, there is a flagrant denial of individual liberty when violence or threats are used to compel individuals to join any organisation or any political movement; or within the membership of such movement, to perform actions which are morally wrong. Such acts of intimidation are unfortunately all too common in our midst, and although they have been repudiated by the responsible leaders, they continue to take place, and constitute in this country an unexampled tyranny which gives little confidence for the future. They are wholly and entirely reprehensible and we cannot too strongly condemn them.
I am at one with hon. Gentlemen opposite in being against discrimination but also against intimidation. We must accept the fact, however, that both exist and that both are wrong.
The Times, on the 14th of this month, published a leader in which it is stated:
Change, to be effective, must come by democratic processes within Southern Rhodesia itself. The difficulty could arise if good faith were absent.
Later in that leader it is implied that if the Dominion Party gained power some of the events that the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn prophesies might take place. I mention this in order to remind the House that the 25 per cent. influence of the lower roll on the upper roll will pretty well eliminate all chances of the Dominion Party being returned. It is therefore no wonder that the Dominion Party is fighting this Constitution so vehemently.

Mr. Stonehouse: I wonder if the hon. Gentleman is aware that in Northern Rhodesia the African electors rushed to the polls to vote for the Dominion Party candidate because they were so opposed to the hypocrisy of Sir Roy Welensky and the U.F.P.? Are we not likely to see the same result?

Mr. Wall: What the hon. Gentleman states must have been quite ineffective,

because they returned only one member of the D.P. to the legislative assembly.
I believe that this Constitution will issue in a new chapter in the history of Southern Rhodesia. I believe that it will start truly a non-racial approach to the problems of the future. In so doing, I believe that it is the best chance we have of maintaining and preserving this great experiment of federation in Central Africa. The Africans' objection to the Federation has always been that it was a device to enshrine the supremacy of the European minority at Salisbury within a constitution and so allow them to be the dominating race in the Federation. This new Constitution outlaws discrimination in the future, and it bids fair to lead to action to undo the discrimination of the past. I believe that it will give a chance of changing the African view towards federation and that now, for the first time during the last five years, we have a real chance to make the Federation a real success.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the success of the negotiations. I am sure that, he already knows that these proposals will inevitably depend for their success on the referendum. There will be great pressure against the referendum by the Dominion Party, for various reasons, one of which I have already mentioned, but in my view and, I believe, in the view of the majority of Europeans throughout the Federation, the referendum will have no chance at all of succeeding unless there is a reasonable Constitution in Northern Rhodesia. I am not for a moment suggesting that there should be gerrymandering and favouring one party or another. What I do suggest is that the new North Rhodesian Constitution must for the next five years—that is until the subsequent election—produce a Government, black, white or mixed—the colour matters not—which is a pro-Federation Government. If Lusaka has an anti-Federation Government, then that, in addition to a similar Government in Nyasaland, will obviously mean that the balance of the Federation will be destroyed and, as a result, the whole Federal experiment will probably collapse.
The key, of course, lies in the control exercised in the 15 middle roll seats and whether that control will be exercised,


mainly by the upper roll or by the lower roll. I believe that it is vitally important to the future of the whole Federation that the upper roll must dominate bearing in mind that it is now 13 per cent. non-European. Nearly all the Europeans I have met in Central Africa accept and believe that the Africans will exercise political power, but they are determined to see that this political power remains in what they term responsible hands, in other words, that it remains with the upper roll, that the upper roll in all these countries should remain dominant. I believe that is right.
We in Britain must do something to help to consolidate this now Constitution. My hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary, in answer to a Question I asked him the other day, said that, since the start of the Federation, Her Majesty's Government had made no grants or loans to Southern Rhodesia except £1 million in 1956–57 which was a C.D.C. grant for African housing. I believe that we must be more generous and that as a Parliament we must buttress this new Constitution with practical and financial help so as to ensure its success in producing true Rhodesians irrespective of race.

7.33 p.m.

Mr. Jack Jones: I stand before the House as a completely new boy in colonial affairs. I have never been a member of my own party's colonial committee and, therefore, I cannot be accused of being biased in any way in this debate. I am probably the last Member for Parliament to have been in Rhodesia. I left late last Friday, having been there for 17 or 18 days. I know it is said that no one can learn much in 17 or 18 days. Of course, there is none so blind as he who does not want to see, and there is none so uneducated as he who does not want to know. It was, I think, my forty-ninth trip out of this country on that sort of mission during and since the war, and I think that I can claim to have seen and learned quite a lot. How much is learned depends a great deal upon who the person is who goes to look.
I saw a wonderful country, with beautiful countryside and potential wealth which cannot he computed at least in figures which I could calculate. There is mineral wealth unbounded and a labour force which, if trained, educated and brought on aright as it ought to

have been and still needs to be, could make the country a tremendous asset in the world. That was the potential I saw.
What did I see? If one goes there completely unbiased, one sees an E1 Dorado of industrial exploitation and political discrimination. I am one who humbly says that, but for the grace of God, I should have been the African sitting in the gallery and he would have been here standing in my place. As things have turned out, Almighty God came down in my favour; I had the opportunity to have an ordinary day-school education, an opportunity which is denied to millions of Africans today.
Her Majesty's Government are trying to do now what they often try to do—too little and too late. It is the old story of evens catching up. There is no doubt at all that the Government realise that events have caught up with them. The African desires something better, regardless of his lack of education, regardless of his lack of political knowledge. He means what he says. He wants something which he believes—to use words often used in this country—was owed to his grandfather and to his father.
It is not unusual for us in Britain to witness the development of a movement overnight to improve man's lot. I speak as one, with a trade union card in his pocket at this moment, after fifty-one years of membership. I am getting on a bit now, past the old-age pension stage. That is my history. I know something of the movements made by all sorts of people in all parts of the world, and, being quite honest and factual, I am not surprised at all that the Africans are on the move. They have everything there except the thing which really matters, political stability.
Hon. Members talk glibly in the House as though there were three or four parties in Rhodesia, as though there were the party of the "haves", the party of the "have nots", and one or two parties in between. Thirty-two different political parties have been formed in the Rhodesias during the last five years. A Minister has only to receive an unsatisfactory answer from somebody else and he walks out and forms a party of his own. That has happened. How hon. Members can talk in the House as though


there were a constitutional procedure in Rhodesia akin to our own I do not understand. The idea is fantastic.
The African is on the move. I am not one of those who say that one man, one vote, is the solution. I found plenty of educated Africans, perfect gentlemen, to whom I owe a great debt for the way in which I was treated when I was there. I met plenty of educated Britons, industrialists and others, who owe a lot to the Africans. I owe them a debt, too. We were denied no opportunity to meet anyone or to see anything anywhere.
As I have said, there is in that country potential wealth which, if it were properly controlled and if political stability could be brought about, could mean for the people there a way of life such as we have never known. We have never had such a range of mineral wealth or such a labour force.
Again, hon. Members speak in the House as if the leaders of some of the movements in Rhodesia were political saints. They should tell us the truth. I did not overstep what I thought were the bounds of courtesy in the country where I was a guest. I kept within the limits and I did not seek to break the rules. I did not like some of the laws. I saw there something which I saw during the war south of the Mason-Dixon line, discrimination—"Entry coloured", "Entry white"—on the railways with separate places for people to buy their tickets, but with the money all going into the same box. There was no discrimination with the "lolly".
I saw that sort of thing in Rhodesia, but there was no discrimination when it came to putting the money in the bank, or putting it on one side. People talk about the political situation in Kenya. Two friends of mine, good steel men, full of knowledge, not full of education—men who had learned the hard way—and who came from Kenya could not buy a box of matches last Friday afternoon. The situation is just chaotic, and we shall have the same sort of thing in Rhodesia if we do not bring about political stability there.
There is one man who is sitting back and watching Africa at this time, the man in charge at the Kremlin. He is the most interested person of all. Africa

could go. Africa could be lost by the West. If we in this House are prepared to do anything so foolish as to deny ourselves access to the £293 million worth of copper which was mined out of the bowels of the earth last year by African labour, we are lunatics.
Let us get down to brass tacks. Some people talk as if all Europeans who go out there are completely friendly towards the Africans. I have seen artisans, members of my own party, ex-members of my own union, who talk about how many "boys" they have in their house, about their garden boy and their house boy. They never had such a time in all their lives. It seems to me that the social ladder there is determined by the number of boys one can keep at the lowest possible price. That is about the size of it, as I saw it. There was affluence that I have never seen in Britain. In the kraals and villages we saw natives, happy-go-lucky folk—we can produce the photographs of them—who were singing and dancing, happy in their lot. But their lot is not so good.
This is a paradise for potential political exploitation. We can write Nyasaland off now, because Banda is in charge. His own police are in charge. He has his own army being trained on the roadside with sticks, as our Home Guard used to be trained. He can get rifles as soon as he wants them. Let us get down to brass tacks. He is a man who cannot speak the African language, having spent thirty years in this country. He advocated that his own people should not be vaccinated, yet during the last six months he has been vaccinated himself against smallpox.
My own party and the Tory Party had better get together in this matter in the interests of Britain and of the West. I say that advisedly. I have no axe to grind in this matter. It is all very well for people to go out there and, because it suits their own political line of thought, to say that everything is right in the Africans' eyes and nothing is right in the Europeans' eyes. I saw Africans lining up against Europeans, Europeans lining up against Africans, and Europeans lining up against Europeans.
I interjected earlier in the debate to point out that there were thousands of


notices, almost on every tree in and around the countryside, saying, "Vote 'No' or go". They were put there by British finance and were posted with European help. That is the sort of thing that we must face. The situation in the Rhodesias at the moment is very serious and sad.
Here I speak as an old trade union negotiator who has been to see the boss more times than I care to remember about what my people wanted. I cannot understand Members of this House who talk about what the Africans want and, because they cannot get the lot, wonder whether they should have part of it. I am all for half a loaf rather than no bread any time. The African is saying, "We have pushed them into giving us 15 seats. Stick the pin in a bit more—not the spear yet, just the pin. Prod them a bit and we will get a little more." He rightly says, "With a little pressure, we have made a move in the right direction". The Minister said that it was a start, a move in the right direction. If, with 15 seats, they can prove to their fellow men and women that they are fit to represent them, and that they can formulate policies and advocate a cause, as we have done in this House, they will want to go a little further.
I can remember the day when there was only one Socialist in this House. Outside, he wore a cloth cap. We exhibited his photograph with pride and adoration in our kitchens and homes—Keir Hardie himself. We have proceeded in a relatively short time to where we are today. We should be sitting across there, but we are not. This is not because of the Tories of the country but because of the working class. They are the folk who put our friends over there, if they are our friends. That is the situation.
If the Africans can get 15 good voices—and there are plenty of well-educated, decent Africans who can put forward a point of view—one can see the African exploiting his fellow men, and the educated African using his knowledge to exploit the less well educated African. It is happening in Persia, America and all over the world. Where there is illiteracy and lack of education, there is the E1 Dorado, the opportunity, for exploitation. It has been done by the Europeans and by the Africans. They must get

together on this problem. I do not want to go into the intricacies of the upper roll and the lower roll. I am more concerned with the bread roll of the world—food, decency, and homes.
We saw a tremendous job of work being done while we were there. The Anglo-American Copper Corporation is doing all that it can, like the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company did in Persia. We are not concerned with that today, but they are doing a great big job in housing, education, sport—the whole gamut of advancement in welfare, about which I claim to know a little.
The African is saying that this advance is a bit belated. I could talk about the jobs being done by the do-gooders out there. People said to me, "You have never seen a soup kitchen". I said, "Oh yes, I have. I saw soup dished out to better men than your father or your husband twenty or thirty years ago. We have had them in our own country. I have served soup myself, so I know." One should pay tribute to the great work which is being done there. The biggest part of it is being done from a sincere desire to uplift the African to where people want him to be. On the other hand, there is a paternalism about it, a bit of appeasement.
I shall never forget to my dying day what I saw a week last Sunday morning—200 to 300 children, some of whom had walked since midnight 30 miles to come and sing for a few Members of Parliament. I do not suppose that any of my colleagues will forget it. It is one of those things which one looks back on with pride. A Salvation Army captain and his wife were hundreds of miles out in the bush. We took safari planes to get there. The Salvation Army is doing a wonderful job there. I make no apology for mentioning the work that it is doing. However, it is not sufficient to bring political stability to that great country which we in particular, on this side and, I believe, many members of the Tory Party would like to see.
The day has arrived when we must face the fact that the African negro wants exactly what his European masters and other white men have if he can get it and as soon as he can get it. But we did not come by it overnight. The great trouble is that the illiterate African is being encouraged by the educated African into the idea that if he can get a


ballot paper, hey presto, tomorrow he will have a bank book, and then all he has to do is to put his thumb on it and he can draw money out of the bank, and all that damned nonsense. This is part of the propaganda. People are being told, "If you vote this way, vote anti-European, if you vote for me, you will get a pass book tomorrow. You put your thumb on it, go to the bank and draw the 'lolly' just like the fellow who draws it when he has not got it in the bank, like the Europeans do"—even in Rhodesia.
The African should know the value of and the reason for a ballot paper. He should know how to use it. But there are thousands of Africans—I say this with sincerity; it is to be deplored, but it is a fact—who do not know how to use writing paper and how to put legible marks on it. Thousands do not know how to use writing paper, while there are hundreds of thousands who do not yet know how to use toilet paper, such is the society in which we live in the world in 1961. It is tragic. It is no use moaning or crying about it, but those happen to be the facts of the situation. We must give those folk, who are made in God's image as we ourselves are made, an opportunity to get what we ourselves demand and try to enjoy.
Never a speech is made on the Floor of this House, from either side, that does not have as its object a desire to have something better than the present system of society, either industrially, politically or in some other way, through, for example, the Health Service or education. Today, at Question Time, for instance, we heard that there were not sufficient remand homes. There are plenty of people to occupy them, but there is no room in which to put them. There is no need to talk about African delinquency. We have plenty of reasons to talk about delinquency among educated children in this country.
The Africans are a wonderful people, full of humour and good will. They live on a diet of mealy-meal, which they eat two or three times a day and seem to be reasonably content. But their children are not content, and their children's children will not be content, until they can live in a system of society that Almighty God wished that we could all live in.
I cannot vote against the Constitution. I must tell my own party that on the basis of an opportunity for extra seats to be given for Africans, we have no right to say that, because we cannot get the lot, we should not have some. That is the logic of the argument.
I want to say a word or two about the trade unions of Africa. Let me tell my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh), who has visited Africa and is greatly concerned for the African, that I happen to be a specialist in the trade union world and that I have sorted out to my own satisfaction the type of leadership that is there. Without mentioning names, I tell my hon. Friend that I am not at all happy at the importation of elements from South Africa and ex-railway men being put in charge of the Miners' Union, of which tens of thousands of people are in membership. It does not appear to me to be the right solution to have imported within the last couple of months people from South Africa whom we know, and one from Scotland whom we know far too well. That is not the sort of leadership that I would advocate in the best interests of the African miner.
The African Miners' Union, too, is out for advancement. I want to be completely frank about it. It could be advancement provided that the differentials remain the same. As a trade unionist, I cannot understand why there should be two different unions advocating exactly the same thing for and on behalf of the same people working at the same job. In my own union, in this country, 14 or 15 different nationalities are all taken care of and their case for better wages and better conditions is advocated by the leader of the union. In America, one can go south of the Mason-Dixon line and see thousands of negroes in the same trade unions, yet in Africa we see the sort of situation which I have just described. Nobody minds the African coming a bit nearer in wages provided that the differentials remain the same.
I am grateful to have had the opportunity to look at a part of the world which I had not seen before. It was one of the few remaining parts which I had not had an opportunity to see. I wanted to go because I had heard so much talk by the supporters of both the European and of the African point of view. I


wanted to consider the problem with a neutral, fresh mind. I saw what I wanted to see.
I repeat that this nation of ours, including both my party and the Tory Party, must be careful how it steps. The Constitution may not provide all that is necessary. It may provide a stepping stone and it may be opening the door, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) said, just that little bit, although, in her opinion, by no means wide enough. In my opinion, it provides an opportunity for the African to look round the door and see what is going on. If it can be the start of something that will prevent the break-up of the Federation and can avoid the chaos which we see in the Congo and elsewhere, which ultimately provides the opportunity for Communism to walk in and take over a defenceless nation, we shall have done some good by this debate.

7.53 p.m.

Sir Lionel Heald: I believe that many of us would like to say how grateful we are to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) for bringing into this discussion what I would describe as an atmosphere of reality. What is it that we are trying to do here today? I speak as a member of the Monckton Commission, and when the hon. Member for Rotherham was speaking I felt just the same as he did.
I visited Southern Rhodesia in a slightly different capacity. I was there a year earlier, but I had many of the experiences of which the hon. Member has spoken. In the Monckton Commission, we said that we were convinced that every possible effort must be made to preserve and improve the Federation as a multi-racial or non-racial experiment quite unparalleled anywhere else in Africa or in the world as the one chance of succeeding there.
What is the key to the Federation from that point of view? It must be Southern Rhodesia, with its years of history, a country which is bound together on the lines of two races. There is no question of suddenly turning Southern Rhodesia into a black country. The new Constitution is an effort to make a contribution to the possibility of a Federation and of a real step forward in that part of the world.
Two of the most important elements in the new Constitution have been adopted from the Report of the Monckton Commission. I do not want to get into an argument with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, but he did not altogether do justice to the Monckton Commission because, in referring to our recommendations in relation to the Constitutional Council and the Bill of Rights, he made two errors.
First, my hon. Friend said that unlike the Monckton Commission, a veto was not proposed in relation to the Constitutional Council, but only delaying powers. If my hon. Friend will look at the Report, he will find that that is not accurate. At page 86 of the Report, we set out clearly our view. We stated:
We have debated whether the Councils of State should have a power of veto and have decided against it, They should only have a power of delay.
My hon. Friend also stated that a better method had bean adopted for dealing with amendments, because whereas the Monckton Commission had opted for a three-quarters majority, it was now proposed to arrange to have a majority of each race. If my hon. Friend looks again at the Report of the Monckton Commission, he will find that that is precisely what was recommended by that Commission.
I mention those points, not to justify the Monckton Commission or to quarrel with my hon. Friend but to point out that I believe that the motive behind my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—we shall look forward with great interest to hearing him tell us about it when he winds up the debate—is that same motive of trying to give a real impulse to the idea of the non-racial or the multi-racial state.
Surely, we must have faith about this. If we start with the idea that Southern Rhodesia will make no attempt to work the Constitution we might just as well all get up and walk out of the House. I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Rotherham for encouraging me to speak, otherwise I probably would not have dared to get up and talk in this way. I agree very much with him that we must approach this question not from the viewpoint of controversy, still less of party controversy. We must realise the truth of the old Chinese saying, that


it is later than we think and that there is just one more chance.
As the hon. Member for Rotherham said, the guarantee of fifteen seats for the Africans can be contrasted with the position today, when the African has no seats. I believe that, with a Constitutional Council operating, it will be possible to make the Constitution work.
I should like my right hon. Friend to say a word about paragraph 32 of the White Paper, which deals with existing legislation. I will not enter into an argument with the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) in her absence, but she was not quite right in regard to that matter. It is there provided that, in relation to the existing legislation, the Council of State shall take that into account and if it does its job properly it will report. I wonder whether something cannot be said on those lines. We discussed in the Monckton Commission whether something could not be provided for that would not only be a report and a letter written drawing attention to discriminatory provisions that now exist but some provision for it being discussed in the Legislature. It may be that that is not necessary. I should like to know what my right hon. Friend thinks about it.
I am quite sure, as one of my hon. Friends said, that it is true already in Southern Rhodesia that they are considering this question. If we are to have this Constitutional Council and Bill of Rights, what are we to do about the laws that we have got? I think that we should be very unfair, and, indeed, it would be very foolish of us, to imagine that they will just keep them as they are. In fact we know that they will disappear.
If this Constitution is to succeed in Southern Rhodesia it has to be accepted by everyone. It has to be accepted by the people. A great figure like Sir Robert Tredgold has been mentioned. I hope that he will be a supporter of it. I believe that although he would like to see it go much further, he will, like the hon. Member for Rotherham, say, "This is something". We shall find that men like that are not prepared to support this new Constitution and try to help to make it work unless these things are tackled. Do let us have a little faith in this matter. I believe that there will be

great difficulty in getting the progress that many of us would like to see, but that is no reason for not appreciating what has already been done and also giving credit for their good faith to those who have gone as far as they have. I hope that we shall give them every chance of doing so.
I must say that I deprecate the tone of the speeches from hon. Members opposite who preceded the hon. Member for Rotherham. They all seemed to be directed to one point. It almost seemed that all they had in their minds was, somehow or other, to secure African supremacy. That is not what we want, any more than we want to secure European supremacy. Attention seemed not to be directed to the multi-racial objective, which, surely, is what we must all have in mind.

8.3 p.m.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I have never before followed the former Attorney-General, the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald), and I do not know quite how to begin my remarks. Perhaps it was characteristic of him that he should spoil some of his arguments by proceeding to lecture us from a very great height on how we ought to present our arguments. With respect to him, I think that we are entitled to present our arguments as we like and to put what emphasis we like upon them. If we think that a section of the population in Southern Rhodesia—in this case the Black African—is not getting a fair crack of the whip it is natural for our speeches to appear not to support the Government's point of view. That does not mean as a logical consequence—I am surprised at the faulty legal deduction—that we therefore exclude the interest of the European. Most of us who judge and accept each other's sincerity believe that we are all trying to see in this country and, indeed, in all parts of Africa a non-racial society. It is the curse not only of Africa but of the world that we should have racialism in any shape.
I think that the former Attorney-General might do us the courtesy of accepting the validity of our arguments however we present them. He may not necessarily agree with them, but at least he should accept our right to present


them. The same kind of attitude was shown in the speeches of other hon. Members opposite. The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett) told us that we ought to be responsible in what we say in the House. That means, of course, that we must say things with which he does not substantially disagree. Earlier, we had a lecture from the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) about how the Government in Southern Rhodesia should be delivered into the hands only of responsible people. I suppose that we shall have certificates of responsibility issued by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, or some such oracle, to say that, "The following people are responsible and the others are irresponsible."
"Responsible" or "irresponsible" are highly subjective words and to try to introduce them in an impartial way in a highly political atmosphere like this seems very much like being ludicrous in the use of words. Many of the black Africans whom I have met in Rhodesia were described to me by many of the white Africans as moderates. I did not think that they were very moderate, but that was the whites' opinion. Just as I have heard many black Africans described as extremists whom I thought were extremely moderate. It all depends where one stands.
I deprecate the idea that people should use these words so liberally and lecture us on this side, or any of the Africans, white or black, about being responsible or irresponsible. Let us hope that we shall try to approach these political problems as sensibly as we can. I hope that the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey will get an answer to his question. He was a hard-working member of the Monckton Commission and the Commission put forward a very serious recommendation about the question of the three-quarters majority. We are here discussing White Papers which have altered this and made it two-thirds, and I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is entitled to a very full explanation from the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations on this matter.
The onus of proof of the validity of two-thirds as opposed to three-quarters lies entirely with the Government's Ministers. The Joint Under-Secretary of State in opening did not explain this

quite fully, and I hope that he will answer the right hon. and learned Member and those of us who are concerned about this. This is an important question. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) has taken a moderate line of being willing to accept half a loaf. The honeyed words heard from the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey may not be quite the same words if, in a later debate, he accuses us of having with the Tories accepted this Constitution after something has gone wrong. We have seen all this before, when it has been said, "Ah, well, the Labour Party agreed also."
The Amendment we present is that we
cannot assent to proposals involving the abandonment of powers…
I should like to quote from what was said on the present powers in a paper circulated at the Press conference held by Sir Edgar Whitehead for correspondents who came to talk to him about these constitutional proposals. On page 2 there are tables side by side comparing the existing Constitution and the proposed Constitution. Here are powers in which you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, as a Scotsman like myself, will be interested. For they are the price of this contract. The price of the contract is whether we are going to sell the existing powers for new powers. The existing powers which the Government are proposing to give away are that the following types of Bills in the Southern Rhodesian legislature will no longer require the Secretary of State's approval or consent. Firstly, Bills which
impose any condition, disability or restriction on natives only (except in regard to the supply of arms, ammunition or liquor).
Secondly, Bills which
Repeals, alters, amends or is repugnant to or inconsistent with any section of the constitution which the Legislative Assembly is permitted to repeal or alter.

Sir L. Heald: Does the hon. Member suggest that existing powers have ever been of the slightest value in preventing these laws being insisted upon?

Dr. Mabon: That is precisely the point. In relation to the last ten years the answer is "No", because these powers can only be exercised by a majority in the British Parliament. We know what that means. They are exercised by the Executive with the approval of


the British Parliament. In fact, the Executive—the Tory Cabinet—in the last ten years have never attempted at any time to impede the passage of any of these laws, have never annulled this repressive legislation—

Sir L. Heald: Why?

Dr. Mabon: —in Southern Rhodesia. I cannot think—I should be ashamed if it were so—that any single Member on the other side would champion any of the repressive laws which exist in Southern Rhodesia at the present time. Rather than administer them the former Chief Justice, Sir Robert Tredgold, resigned in protest. I have never heard a single Conservative Member justify any of these laws. On the contrary, the only ones I have heard talking about them are those who agree with me that they are repressive, shocking, quite distasteful, ought to be repealed and ought never to have been made. Why, then, did not the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the British Cabinet come to the House and ask for support in seeking to annul those laws and refuse to give the Southern Rhodesian Assembly the right to put them into legal practice? Why? The powers are there, but they have never been used.

Sir L. Heald: Is the hon. Member not aware that, in constitutional practice, when this state of affairs has existed for forty years, it is as a matter of practical politics impossible to exercise these rights? He does not seem to be aware of that.

Dr. Mabon: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is in a very dangerous field of argument here, because if that is true—of course, he believes it to be true—then he had better pay attention to the Government's argument later on about what powers are reserved to us there in the remaining powers. What is being said by people in Southern Rhodesia is along the lines of the "Boston Tea Party" speech of the Federal Prime Minister, Sir Roy Welensky, that they can declare themselves independent anyway whatever this House thinks. That was said in an election speech earlier this year, before this Constitution was agreed upon.
In fact, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is correct in his argument that

it is all very well having these powers on paper. These are, to my mind as a layman, very extensive powers, these reserve powers on paper. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right in saying that we have these on paper, but in political practice we have never operated them. What it means is this, that we are by this Constitution giving Southern Rhodesia independence—irrevocably. We can never claim back any of the powers. I believe that is right.

Mr. Braine: I think this is an interesting and important point, but would the hon. Member turn his mind to the position in the new Constitution in regard to the existing legislation, which was also distressing my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald)? It will be open to the Constitutional Council to examine any Acts or Statutory Instruments which are in force on the date of the Constitution and make a report if it regards them as contrary to the Declaration of Rights. That report will be made, and the Speaker of the Assembly is required to lay it before the Assembly, but the Assembly, unlike the present one, will have a substantial number of African elected members and others who will be dependent in some measure, perhaps in considerable measure, on African votes.

Dr. Mabon: I do not want the Under-Secretary of State to go on with that point, to which I will return in a moment, and escape from this issue I am trying to deal with the Chertsey argument, if I may put it that way. Whatever powers we had previously, he says, in political practice they are not operative. It is a logical argument then to say that whatever powers we claim to have under the revised Constitution will be in exactly the same condition of political sterility. He cannot have it both ways. It must be one or the other. Either we have these powers present and proposed and have the right to operate them or we do not.
I want to go further to deal with the argument of the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey who said that these reserve powers are, in fact, inoperable and, therefore, of no practical value.
Listen to Sir Edgar Whitehead, who said in Bulawayo on 7th April, not to


the British public but to his own electorate:
With the speed with which Africa is moving it is extremely dangerous to leave the reserved powers for another two years. I want to see them removed this year. For the last twenty years, and even before the war, the British Government largely left us alone. We are not in the world's eye. But recently the Ministers of the United Kingdom have been entertaining members of the opposing group. This became increasingly dangerous. Under two electoral rolls the proposed Parliament of this country will remain for all time in the control of people with upper roll qualifications.
That was the 27th April in Bulawayo.
Now I pay tribute to this politician, a man with a brilliant ice-cold brain, one of the best white settler politicians there has been, who certainly knows where he is going. Moreover, he knows how to sell his political views to his electorate. This man, I am sure, will win the referendum on 26th July The Sunday Mail in Salisbury has predicted that 80 per cent. of the electorate will be for the referendum. I would not have it otherwise. I quite accept what my hon. Friend said. It would be tragic if the referendum collapsed.
But let us have the position clear. We are deciding tonight to surrender these powers in exchange for what? The question is why are we surrendering the powers at all. The answer is because Sir Edgar Whitehead is afraid that if Britain retains them then the Southern Rhodesians will be unable themselves to determine the pace at which discriminatory laws will be removed. This decision is to be kept entirely and completely in the hands of the Southern Rhodesians.
Let us suppose that people said, "Well, the British Government will behave differently." Are we in this House to accept that, we who have been through all the debates on the Federation and the debates we had in 1951 and 1952 on the Measures creating the Federation, with all those wonderful safeguards we were told about, including the African Affairs Board?
I can remember the time when we had the debates in 1957 about the Electoral Franchise Bill and the Constitution Amendment Bill and about the objections of the African Affairs Board. We were told that the British Government would be the umpires and that the final

umpire would be the British Parliament. We were told that justice would be plain to see. But we have not seen justice done at all to the African Affairs Board. Every time the Board cried "Foul" the British Government disagreed. This is not a potted history. It happens to be a tragic fact of Conservative Administration since 1952. Do we really expect the black Africans to believe that we can be the umpires and fair umpires at that?
That is why what the Under-Secretary said earlier on, about the two-thirds majority and how this will make everything different with the safeguards, and the various provisos becomes so important. As someone said earlier, we see from the very last paragraph in the summary of the proposed changes that in fact all the four racial groups can be supplanted. The Under-Secretary of State said, "Oh, yes, but that is only in minor affairs". How does he know?

Mr. Braine: On the contrary, I said nothing of the kind. The reason, think, is pretty plain. If one uses the entrenched provisions for a separate referendum for each of the racial groups this might freeze the position in the Assembly. Supposing that it were decided, for example, to increase the number of B roll seats. This would be a very unsatisfactory way of trying to deal with the matter but one must remember that there will be at least 15 and there may well be more Africans in the Assembly. They need only 22 votes to defeat any proposal and, as I have said before in a previous intervention, all the rest of the members of the Assembly will, unlike the present situation, be dependent in large measure upon African votes. In other words, the whole question should be seen against a totally different political background where the members in the Assembly are responsible to races other than their own.

Dr. Mabon: The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me in what he says. I had thought that he said he was referring only to minor affairs, but I take it from that intervention that he is telling me that the alternative form of securing a majority in a referendum of each of the four major groups can be operated not just on minor matters but on major matters.
Paragraph 53 of the White Paper speaks of
…the amendment of these basic clauses…
These are the ones which we exchange for the reserve powers, and this is terribly important. We have certain reserve powers which the Government have refused to use and of which Sir Edgar Whitehead, by his own confession, is afraid. He wishes them to be removed and he makes a bargain. He says to us, "You remove the reserve clauses and I will give you certain things in exchange." He is giving certain important constitutional rights, but I emphasise that they are qualified rights.
Then Sir Edgar Whitehead makes the claim for himself, as he did at the Press Conference, that he thought of the four racial groups referendum idea. Nevertheless, one must go on to paragraph 54 of the White Paper, which provides the legal loophole by which one can get round these four groups, and the Joint Under-Secretary has confirmed our worst fears. Instead of going to the four racial groups for a referendum majority it will be possible for the Legislative Assembly by a two-thirds majority to go to the British Parliament and if that Parliament says that that is all right then it is all right.
This is where the three-quarters majority, instead of two-thirds, in the Assembly becomes relevant. When the fifteen are elected, they do not represent anywhere near a two-thirds majority. That is why these figures are important.
These constitutional proposals are a cleverly arranged political solution to a difficult problem for the white settlers. They are the people who want the reserve clauses given up. They are the people who are making a good bargain. They want enough loopholes so that they are entirely in charge of the levers of power by which the rate of African integration, black with white, will be determined.
I am asked on behalf of my constituents to vote in favour of this White Paper and this bargain. I cannot do so, because it is a fundamental breach of faith with these Africans who are disenfranchised at present and who will never achieve the position in Southern Rhodesia which they deserve. I cannot vote for that kind of Constitution. I am

extremely glad that my party is committed to vote on this issue tonight. This is a historical occasion.
All my hon. and right hon. Friends who voted against Federation are now acquitted at the bar of history because they were right in saying that Federation imposed on the three Territories was a great mistake, and that the idea was self damned before it started. Tonight we are at the crossroads of deciding whether Southern Rhodesia goes with Nyasaland, Northern Rhodesia, Tanganyika and Kenya as a non-racial State, or swings over to the apartheid mentality of Verwoerd South Africa. The Government have made no case at all for the British Parliament surrendering these reserve powers. They should be ashamed of themselves that they have never sought to use these powers to try and defeat the iniquities foisted upon the black Africans of Southern Rhodesia.

8.26 p.m.

Mr. Charles Longbottom: I hope that the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) will forgive me if I do not answer his arguments closely. It would take a great deal of time to do so and in this debate time is limited.
It is unrealistic for anyone to try to examine the problem of Southern Rhodesia without looking at those countries which surround it. To the south there is the vicious, abominable apartheid policy of the South African Government which cannot be respected by any civilised country. To the east and through Bechuanaland to the west lie the Portuguese territories of Angola and Mozambique and the House has already expressed today its horror at the atrocities taking place, particularly in Angola on all sides. To the north lies Northern Rhodesia, a country which I hope will soon have an African elected majority.
This is not an isolated situation, and what happens to Africans in the rest of Africa is bound to affect Africans in Southern Rhodesia. The fact that Africans in the west of Africa have got independence is bound to affect the views of Africans in Southern Rhodesia. A pattern has been set, and it is only natural that they want to achieve their independence too.
Of course there are special problems in Southern Rhodesia. I put it to the hon. Member for Greenock that some of the countries which he mentioned earlier have not quite the same settler problem that there is in Southern Rhodesia. But the European as well must realise his responsibilities and where his future must lie in Africa, because if independence is to be a long drawn out struggle for the African, the European will have no settled future on that continent. The only security for the European in Africa depends upon partnership and cooperation with all the other races.
It is no good Europeans in Southern Rhodesia saying, "Of course, we do not mind these guys in the Government if they have the same standard of efficiency as ourselves" but at the same time doing precious little to give them a standard of efficiency. That will not help the situation at all. It is in explosive racial conditions such as we have in Southern Rhodesia that extremists on either side will try to whip up dissent and hold the attention of the masses. There are black African extremists who are shouting for immediate independence, who wish to have no compromise and who wish to keep the European out of Southern Rhodesia.
I warned my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) that I wished to cross swords with him over his accusation against the National Democratic Party of having Communist funds. That may happen in the case of one or two individuals in that party—I do not know—but it is a most unhappy charge to make about the National Democratic Party, which has, I believe, an extremely good leader, Mr. Joshua Nkomo, who has been a friend of mine for some years.
On the other side are the white African extremists, the "We are here to stay by force" people, and they, too, pander to the worst instincts of race and crude survival. These extremes are to be found in Southern Rhodesia today.
It is our duty in this House to examine any moves and decisions that we have to make to ensure that we encourage the statesmen and moderates on either side and provide Southern Rhodesia with the best possible opportunity for partnership. Any constitutional change must surely be examined

from one viewpoint—will it build up trust and confidence and act as a cornerstone of partnership? This becomes even more important when in this Constitution the United Kingdom is taking the decision virtually to give up all the reserve powers. Therefore, the test is whether the Constitution, when passed, will help build up confidence and partnership in that country.
I believe it will. It gives electoral encouragement to the moderates. It gives electoral disadvantages to the extremists. It gives, for the first time, a reasonable representation to the African in the Southern Rhodesia Legislative Council, a representation which I hope will be speeded up over the years. By the Declaration of Rights of the Constitutional Council it safeguards the Southern Rhodesians against racial extremism.
There is one thing that I want to say about the Declaration of Rights. The point has been laboured by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and other hon. Members opposite that the Declaration does not apply to laws already in force on the appointed day. This is a fact, and in many ways I regard it as perhaps an unfortunate fact, because it will not in the early stages give the Africans the confidence which they need that the Constitution will be a worth-while one.
Therefore, I ask my right hon. Friend why we should not, as soon as the Constitution has been published and is in being and the court has been set up, have a special meeting of the Constitutional Council at the very commencement—to review the existing laws and make immediate recommendations for action by the Government. That would give an opportunity straight away for all existing laws, some of which have been mentioned today, to be examined by the Constitutional Council. If recommendations are made but are turned down by the Government, then I would also give individuals who are affected by the laws in existence before the passing of the Constitution the right, in the cases where the recommendations have been turned down, to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that that right is in the present Constitution?

Mr. Longbottom: No.

Mr. Brockway: If it is not in it, how can it be altered?

Mr. Longbottom: It is not in the present Constitution. What I am saying is that there is nothing in the Constitution which would prevent a special meeting of the Constitutional Council. That was all that I was advocating.

Mr. Brockway: But it would prevent the latter point which the hon. Gentleman was emphasising.

Mr. Longbottom: It might prevent the latter point, but that is perhaps something which could be dealt with by agreement. I should have thought that something could be done to engender confidence in those who feel that existing laws are affecting them after the date of the Constitution and give them some right of appeal if the recommendations of the Constitutional Council have not been accepted by the Government.
As the home of people of many races, all of whom genuinely want to safeguard their future one way or another, Southern Rhodesia is a prosperous and fertile country which offers an opportunity for real partnership, an opportunity for people to show the way—which South Africa seems so unwillingly to take—to show that there can be racial partnership in Southern Africa. I know that this is not an easy rôle and that it is extremely difficult to fulfil, but it is one which the House should do its very best to ensure has the best opportunity. That is why I believe that in the Constitution which they have put forward the Government are embracing within it the best possible chance of racial success.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: This has been a most remarkable debate. I remember the older generation of diehards on colonial matters and I am deeply grateful that there has been an immense change even among the most diehard of the diehards opposite.
It is not only in Africa that there has been this wind of change. The speech of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Long-bottom) was one of the most remarkable of the speeches delivered from the other side of the House today. His suggestion about the Constitutional Council may or may not be practical, but it should most

certainly be pursued by the Government in an effort to engender that confidence of the need for which he spoke.
The hon. Member said that the test of what we were being asked to decide today was whether this whole matter led to further confidence between the races. I accept that test. It is precisely what the test should be in deciding which way we are to vote this evening. It is because I believe that these proposals will not lead to that increased confidence that I feel we ought to vote not for the Government proposal, but rather for the Amendment.
There is this quite an astonishing wind of change. It is not a wind which respects any seasons. It is blowing hard the whole time, unlike the Khamsin or Harmattan. It goes on the whole time and the whole question between us and hon. Members opposite who have spoken with deep sincerity—one can say that of all who have spoken today, although they take a view different from ours—is whether we are paying sufficient attention to this wind.
Sensible people are those who, when they are caught up in a hurricane, amend their ways of life and thought accordingly. In many parts of Africa we have been singularly sensible in the ways we have met this wind and the changed conditions which it has brought about. In others we have been lucky.
In spite of the difficulties which result from having white settlers in a white country, or, indeed, black settlers in a white country, we have been lucky in not yet having had on our hands a devastating war which would destroy the souls and then the lives and then the property, in that order of importance, of the human beings who were swept up in the currents involved in such a war.
We have absolutely no right to think that we can come to the end of our path in Africa just by allowing ourselves to be swept on. We have actively to pay attention to two great principles. First, we have to provide political independence for the majority of the inhabitants of a country as soon as that can humanly be done. Secondly, we have to make it absolutely plain to those inhabitants that when they have that political independence, which we will give them on what terms seem best to secure real political freedom, we will go on to see


to it that economic freedom is made a reality for them and that we will do everything possible to achieve that end in the way of aid, or whatever it may be called, after political independence has been reached.
At present, it is the territory comprised in the Federation which is the most important on the African chess board and where the next moves are being made. As it seems to me—though I have no personal experience of many of them and only a little experience of a few of them—we are dealing with Africans who are extremely sensible and reasonable, although completely consumed by a desire for their own political freedom. Hitherto, they have looked to this country, and the reserved powers of legislation here, to protect their interests.
They do not express their desire for that protection in quite the same picturesque way in which these things used to be expressed, when the great Khama of Bechuanaland threw himself unreservedly at the feet of the Great White Queen. Nevertheless, these reserved powers, unused though they have been all this time, have been something to which the Africans could look.
I look at our Amendment, which we have to consider from this point of view: does it, or does it not, provide an adequate exchange for the powers that formerly were in the United Kingdom Government? I do not accept the view expressed by the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald)—although we have a tremendous respect for his learning—that because these powers have not been used for forty years they could not be used. I do not know what authority the right hon. and learned Gentleman has for quoting a period of forty years. Obviously, the longer they are unused the harder they are to use. I would not dispute that for a moment. But I have very little doubt that they could have and should have been used in the last ten years.
Looking at these proposals for the Constitution of Southern Rhodesia, how can we say that the franchise provisions are an adequate substitute, from the point of view of the protection of African rights? I have paid my tribute to the comparative enlightenment of hon. Members opposite. I wish to say straight away that these provisions are

streets ahead of anything discussed before regarding Southern Rhodesia.
Two years ago, like the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett), I should never have believed that we could possibly be discussing Government proposals putting forward provisions for a Constitution so much in advance of anything which has come before as are these proposals. But that is not the whole point. I agree that the franchise is much better than ever before and that the Constitutional Council is something which might be very valuable. I shall certainly follow the advice of the hon. and learned Member for Chertsey, that we must make this Constitution work when it comes into being. Of course, we shall all try to do that. What some of us fear is that it may not have a chance to work unless we allow the requisite franchise.
Good as they are, these things in this Constitution are not sufficient to cope with the situation of whirling change going on in Africa now. That is why I feel that I cannot possibly fail to go into the Division lobby in support of the Amendment. The hon. Member for York said that a pattern had been set in Africa, and that this pattern would eventually affect what went on in Southern Rhodesia. I agree that the pattern might affect for good the decisions made there. Surely he would say also that that pattern might take control and affect for bad what is being done at this moment in Southern Rhodesia. That is a perfectly genuine difference of approach.
Have we not, time and time again, found that we have had to grant independence before it was safe to grant it according to many of the tenets we in this House held? Are we doing that tonight? In my submission, we are not. It would be unwise to relinquish our powers before we are absolutely certain that we are not giving the Africans something which is less good than something they have had before from our hands.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Fisher: Unlike some hon. Members, not my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Longbottom), who spoke from this side of the House, but some who preceded him, I propose to throw no bouquets to the United Federal


Party or the Southern Rhodesian Government. In my opinion, that party, while preaching the idea of partnership over a very long period, has done precious little about it in practice and, in doing so little, has forfeited the confidence of the Africans.
The United Federal Party is now beginning to think about doing the sort of things that it ought to have done several years ago. By doing those things too late, and grudgingly under pressure from Her Majesty's Government, I think it has lost the opportunity—perhaps for all time and certainly for a very long time—of gaining African confidence and co-operation. It is a mistake which I personally sincerely hope the British Government will not make in regard to Northern Rhodesia, where we still have the power and the responsibility.
I am not surprised that the Africans have lost faith in the United Federal Party. For the most part, the African leaders I have met in Southern Rhodesia could be described as relatively moderate, but the Southern Rhodesian Government, by their actions, have certainly not helped the moderates among the Africans—not at all. Always yielding step by step under pressure every inch of the way, they have delayed to such a point that many of the African moderates have become discredited in the eyes of their followers. The United Federal Party has a great deal of responsibility in that direction.
I believe that, broadly, the African leaders are very suspicious of the United Federal Party. I do not blame them. They know, and we in this House know perfectly well if we search our hearts, that the Constitutional Conference for Southern Rhodesia would never have taken place at all but for the fact that Sir Edgar Whitehead wanted, and asked for, the removal of the reserve powers. Under those circumstances, a conference begun under those auspices should be looked at very searchingly. I do not wonder that the Africans look at the end product, the Constitutional White Paper, very searchingly indeed. I do so, too, and I think that every hon. Member of this House should do so.
It is that sort of view, held, I think, quite sincerely by many Africans, which makes them unhappy and uneasy about some aspects of the document we are

considering tonight. They feel, I believe rightly, that any British Government of any party complexion would always be concerned to safeguard their interests and would give them a fair deal. They are not at all so sure that that applies to a Southern Rhodesian Government based upon a predominantly white electorate.
In the light of what has happened in South Africa, in the light of the policy of the Dominion Party, which we all know about, and in the light of the too-little-too-late policy of the United Federal Party, I do not believe that those fears which the Africans have about this Constitution are unreasonable. I do not think it unreasonable that they should not see much future politically in a party the Federal leader of which—Sir Roy Welensky—is reported as having said at Bulawayo, to a storm of European cheers, a few months ago, "We do not have one man, one vote, here, and I hope that we never shall have". That may have been said partly with a view to the referendum. One must play to one's own electorate. But the word "never" terrifies me. It has the authentic ring of true U.F.P. thinking, and that is what I do not like about the attitude of the United Federal Party; and I think that is what the Africans do not like.
Is it unreasonable that the Africans should fear and detest a Government, as has been referred to by many hon. Members in the debate, which brought in those repressive measures only last year—the Vagrancy Act and the Law and Order Maintenance Act—which, as far as we can see, will remain on the Statute Book after this Constitution has been introduced? Is it unreasonable that they should object to measures like that, Measures which have been universally condemned by everyone in this House and which were condemned by and led to the resignation of that mast respected figure in Central Africa, Sir Robert Tredgold?
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have talked recently to Mr. Malianga, who came here and had an opportunity to put his point of view to some of us. I recognise his fears, although I think that some of them are much exaggerated. He complained to us about the banning by local authorities of meetings in the African Reserves. He


said that that prevented the N.D.P. leaders from consulting their followers.
I doubt whether that can be true. It may have been unwise to ban the meetings, but I do not agree that this prevented the party leaders from ascertaining the views of their own people, because, had they wanted to do so, they could have done this in small private meetings far more effectively and with much better results. I do not think that one obtains the views of people about complex Constitutional issues at large public meetings. Such meetings become occasions for emotional oratory rather than of detailed study and discussion. I did not think that this complaint which he made carried much weight.
Nor did I agree with the further point which he made to me that, because they could not consult their followers, they could not continue their representation in the latter stages of the Constitutional Conference. That, I thought, was not entirely fair or reasonable. Surely, they knew broadly the views of their own people and could have represented them just as well without those meetings. I am rather critical of people who do not want to confer about their problems, just as I was critical of Mr. Roberts, who refused to continue in the Northern Rhodesian Conference. I think that that is a bad thing. People should always be prepared to sit round a conference table.
The Africans were anxious about the reserved powers, and I well understand that anxiety. If Sir Edgar Whitehead was so anxious to get rid of these powers that he was prepared to give 15 or possibly 17 or 18 African seats where not one African had sat in the Southern Rhodesian Parliament before, then, looking at it from the African point of view, it was not unreasonable that they should feel that these were powers which they must retain if Sir Edgar so badly wanted to get rid of them.
So I understand the N.D.P. fears, although I think that they may be exaggerated. I think, in fact, that the Africans may have got a better bargain than they realise, and perhaps a better bargain than the U.F.P. These powers have never been used—hon. Members may say that they ought to have been used—since their inception in 1923, nearly 40 years ago. It would be very

difficult to use them after such a lapse of time, and I believe that in return for what I consider to be almost unusable powers we have obtained a fairly good bargain for the Africans.
In any case, we have no sanction with which to enforce any veto against the wishes of the Southern Rhodesian Government. We must realise our own limitations. I often think that people do not appreciate how little real power we have in Southern Rhodesia. We have virtually none. We parted with power in 1923, nearly forty years ago. It cannot seriously be supposed that we could send United Kingdom troops into Southern Rhodesia to fire either upon Africans or upon our own kith and kin among the European population. We could not do it. It is not on.
If it is not on, what else is there in the way of sanctions? There is very little. There is, perhaps, a certain amount of influence, but that is all. The one card we had—the card that Sir Edgar Whitehead wanted—was the reserved powers. That is now a discard. We have played that card in order to get the 15 seats for the Africans.
Hon. Members apposite say in their Amendment that we have made a bad bargain. I do not know about that. It can be argued that it is a good bargain or a bad one. It gives the Africans something they wanted very much—an improvement in the franchise—the right to play a part in the Parliament of Southern Rhodesia. I think that it is probably a goodish bargain, considering that we had a weak negotiating hand, with only one card to play.

Mr. A. P. Costain: We ought to pay some compliment and respect to the European population. My hon. Friend said that we have not much power in Southern Rhodesia. If that is so, it is all the more reason for pointing out that the Europeans have agreed to this referendum and have advanced the vote for Africans as their education allowed.

Mr. Fisher: I do not want to go into detail. I have promised to finish as soon as possible.
Another important point is that the 15 or 18 Africans in the Southern


Rhodesian Assembly will have considerable influence upon the Government of Southern Rhodesia. They can support the party which is most progressive and which will do most for African advancement. If the two European parties are evenly balanced, it may be practically impossible for a European party to govern without African support. In my experience, many Africans do not seem to think that it matters very much which European party is in power. I believe that is a mistake. It matters a good deal. Nobody is more critical of the U.F.P. than I am, but I believe that there is a good deal of difference between the basic approach of the U.F.P. and that of the D.P.
The abandonment of the reserved powers was our only card. We have played it in exchange for 15, 16, 17 or 18 African seats. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Mal-ton (Mr. Turton) implied, it should also be borne in mind that a better constitutional bargain for the Africans might well have been a better referendum argument for the Dominion Party. We roust also take into account the present electoral position in Southern Rhodesia. It would be a very bad thing for the Africans, however critical they are of the U.F.P., if the D.P. won the referendum.
I ask Africans to use what we have gained for them. I hope that they will take the fullest advantage of the 15, 16, 17 or 18 seats—whatever the number may turn out to be—because this is what we bargained for. This is what we tried to gain for them. It may not be enough, but I hope that what we have gained for them will be used and not wasted. It is important that what we have gained should be used.
I do not think that this Constitution is perfect. I do not agree with every word of it, but on balance it should be supported because I am sure that it will be the start of better things for the Africans in Southern Rhodesia. It may be the start of better things for the Europeans in Southern Rhodesia as well, because paradoxically the only hope for Europeans in any part of East or Central Africa in the long run is that they should make accommodation with African aspirations. The only hope for them is real, non-racial harmony and partnership

in the most complete sense of the term; for, in the end, the African is going to rule in Africa. In the end, it is the European who will depend upon the goodwill of the African.
Much time has been lost and, I am afraid, much goodwill has been dissipated. Perhaps it is not too late, even in Southern Rhodesia—I hope not. Perhaps, even now, the Europeans, who made Southern Rhodesia economically, who have literally created it as a wonderful new modern State, may come to realise that they must live with the Africans; that they must sacrifice some of their political power in order that they and their children after them may stay on in Rhodesia in the years ahead and build there, not on a basis of force but on a basis of genuine consent, the sort of society in which they can live and prosper in peace and good will.
Lastly I make this appeal to those Africans who also genuinely believe in the creation of a non-racial society—there are many who do—who really believe that the future of their country should be on non-racial lines in the interests both of the Europeans and of the Africans. If that is their belief—and I repeat that there are many Africans who do believe it—let them take the opportunity that I believe this Constitution provides for them, at any rate as a first step along that road, the first franchise step they have had and have long wanted.
The U.F.P. has "fluffed" its opportunity to create a multi-racial state, but the future of Africa is for the Africans. Can the African population now rise to the opportunity that I believe the Europeans in Central Africa have missed? Can the Africans show the way to a non-racial approach? It would require a tremendous effort of responsible statesmanship and courageous leadership, but I believe that it can be done. I pray that it may be done.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: I have sat through many debates about the Federation and the territories that make it up—and about Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika—and I have always resented the taunt that has been thrown at hon. Members that we were back-seat drivers who knew little of what was going on, and who could make


irresponsible speeches without having to count the cost of what we said because we did not have to face the consequences. If any of those in these territories could have heard this debate, they could never possibly have repeated that taunt, because the speeches from both sides of the Chamber have been full of knowledge and full of responsibility.
There has certainly been a different approach, but I do not believe that in today's debate—or, indeed, in a whole series of debates on these territories—this House has fallen below the level of responsibility that should be expected from hon. Members. I believe, and I want those overseas who take that other view to know, that hon. Members on both sides feel very deeply, and try to follow extremely closely, the events in these territories, for which we all have a responsibility. If we differ, as the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) has just differed, and as the hon. Member for York (Mr. Longbottom), in a most remarkable speech, has differed, it makes no difference at all to the knowledge and the sense of responsibility that we bring to these problems.
I listened to the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey—I beg pardon; I should have said the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher)—with very great care. I did not follow the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman with great care, because I thought that his was one of the speeches that fell below the level of which I have just spoken. The hon. Member for Surbiton said, in effect, that we had made the best of a bad bargain. I do not accept that there was any need to make this bargain at all, which is why I mark out that point of difference at once.
I would say simply that the Southern Rhodesian Government had to concede African representation whether there had been any change in the reserved powers of Britain or not. Force of circumstances would have compelled them to do so. As has been stated, they cannot be an island removed from all the other territories. What is taking place in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, Tanganyika, Uganda and Kenya must have an effect on the politics of Southern Rhodesia. Whether the reserved powers had been in question or not, I am confident that the Southern Rhodesian Gov-

ernment would have had to concede a considerable measure of African representation—or have gone down in a considerable measure of disorder.
I do not believe, therefore, that there was any need to have made this bargain; and that is really my criticism of the Secretary of State in this matter—that he made a bargain and played his hand badly by bargaining our powers against certain seats. I believe that he was wrong to have done so.
As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) said, this is an historic debate because this House is, in effect, parting with powers which it has held for seventy-three years—since the first charter was given to the British South Africa Company in 1888. Powers like those now contained in Sections 28 and 40 of the Constitution have resided in this House. We can argue later, as it has already been argued, about how much they mean. They were originally put into that charter because the Government and Parliament of the day did not believe that the interests of the British South Africa Company coincided with the interests of the natives, as they then called them.
It was to protect the natives against the British South Africa Company that these powers were reserved to Britain. That is the history of the matter. And when the Southern Rhodesian Government was set up ten years later, in 1898, these powers were repeated in Section 80 of the Constitution in almost the very words that they are contained in the existing Constitution. We are, therefore, taking an historic step in parting with them now.
Our case is that the conditions had not been created in which this House could, in all conscience, part with these powers. That is our reason for declining to consent to legislation that would deprive us of these powers and that is why we have tabled an addendum to the Government's Motion and not an Amendment to it.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) asked his hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton to say something about the Europeans. I will gladly respond on his behalf. I have never disguised—although it has often been disguised from the Europeans—my view that they have done


remarkable work in converting the wilderness into fertile farms and converting what was open bush into remarkable cities. There is no doubt about that and there is no reason why we should deny them that achievement. Nor have I denied that it is the job of this House to ensure that they can live in that country and earn their living in peace and quietude for as long as they care to do so.
That has always been the aspiration of hon. Members on this side of the House and, I hope, of hon. Gentlemen opposite. But I am sorry that those who have propaganda axes to grind have hidden that approach from many of the people out there. I have discovered, over many years of taking part in debates of this kind, that although one can say and mean that, and although it may be one's approach to the subject, it is never reproduced in the newspapers of the Central African Federation. What is reproduced is only the criticism that is uttered. I can, therefore, assure the hon. Member for Surbiton and the hon. Member for York that their balanced criticisms will appear in that form in the Southern Rhodesian Press. Their words will be misconstrued and they will be represented as the worst enemies of the white man. They had better start bearing that burden now. If they care to relieve me of a little of it, I shall be very glad indeed. That, of course, has been the difficulty.
What is our position and responsibility in this matter? Some hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Haltem-price (Mr. Wall), have spoken as though it is our responsibility to take sides in the forthcoming referendum. I am sure that that is the approach of the Secretary of State. He is desperately anxious. He has made this bargain to ensure that the United Federal Party will win the referendum. He does not want the Dominion Party to win, does he? All the discussions have been on that basis. I do not believe that that ought to be the approach of the House of Commons, although my views and those of the Dominion Party are very apart.
The approach of the House of Commons in this matter should be perfectly simple. It is the approach that I outlined at the very beginning. Our responsibility is to tell the people of Southern

Rhodesia whether we are ready to divest ourselves of the powers which reside in this House. It is then for them to make up their minds about whether they are ready to take a decision in the circumstances. I do not want there to be any doubt about this. I should say to the people of Southern Rhodesia, "We do not think that the time is right for the British House of Commons to divest itself of its powers. If you, or those of you who feel that way, choose to vote for the Dominion Party, there is nothing we can do to stop you, but you vote for the Dominion Party in the full knowledge that the British House of Commons will not assent to this proposal which has been put forward". I believe that the Secretary of State is stirring up trouble for himself and for us in the future when he so openly sides with one of the political parties on this issue. That should not have been his approach, and that is another ground far my criticism of the right hon. Gentleman.
There have been references to the narrow majority by which the United Federal Party holds the Government now. I think that it is 1,513. This White Paper, it is hoped, will carry them over the next General Election, but what about the election after that when there will not be a White Paper to argue about, when there will not be the reserved powers to claim credit for, and when there may, on the other hand, be a great del of economic distress? There may be internal conditions which will make the Europeans in the territory vote according to their own economic interest.
Can the Secretary of State assure us that by entering into this bargain with Sir Edgar Whitehead and the United Federal Party he can guarantee a permanent United Federal Party Government? Of course he cannot. If he cannot do that, this House of Commons is running into very great danger in passing its reserved powers into the hands of a country which may well elect to power the Dominion Power to which hon. Members opposite take the greatest exception.
I suppose that there is no difference between us at least on this, that, if the Dominion Party comes to power, it will not be much inhibited by a Declaration of Rights. A Dominion Party Government will not feel that the fact that there


is a Constitutional Council to consider laws passed by the Legislative Assembly stops them from putting their actions through. We all know that the philosophy of many of the members of the Dominion Party is the philosophy of the Government of South Africa today. Many of them are the same people.
To go to Bulawayo or to go to Fort Victoria is to feel oneself to be in South Africa. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] All right. There is a difference of opinion about that. I will preface my remark by saying, "In my view". In my view, to go to Fort Victoria today is to find a philosophy and outlook, and, indeed, to find people of the same stock, as one finds just over the border. What right hon. and hon. Members opposite are doing is delivering the Africans against their will into the hands of a party which may form the Government of the day.
The only condition on which the Commonwealth Relations Secretary could come to us and ask for support for transferring these reserved powers was if he could guarantee that the Dominion Party would never come back to power. He knows that he can do nothing of the sort. The answer is quite simple—keep the powers here. Do not let them go.

Sir Godfrey Nicholson: If that is the view of the Dominion Panty and of the power it would have in Southern Rhodesia, what would be the use of relying on reserved powers from here?

Mr. Callaghan: I take the point, and I think that it is a real one, but at least we would not have connived at handing over powers against the will of the people for whom they were devised. We should not have delivered them into the hands of the gaoler.

Sir G. Nicholson: I do not agree.

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Gentleman may not think so, but, in the context of Africa today, to act honourably is not indecent. I have no doubt in my mind that the Secretary of State is wrongly advised in handing over these powers when he knows full well that he may be handing them to a Government which will not respect their use. I leave the point there.
There are some other issues on which I wish to comment in the time that I

have left. With regard to the powers themselves, as has been pointed out on many occasions during this debate, it is a great weakness that the new Constitutional Council, which will have the right to decide or to recommend whether legislation is discriminatory, can look only forward and not backwards. It has the right, under the Constitution as it is drawn up, to review all legislation which will be passed in future by the Legislative Assembly and to declare whether or not is is discriminatory. It does not have the power—if I am wrong here, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will correct me—to consider existing legislation. Indeed, it is specifically excluded from reviewing existing legislation and existing social discrimination.

Mr. Turton: indicated dissent.

Mr. Callaghan: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would point out to me the paragraph in the Constitution which says that that is not so. I will gladly give way to him when he has found it. As I read it, that is the position. This is a remarkable situation, because we all know—

Mr. Turton: I have found the paragraph. I have read it out before. If the hon. Gentleman looks at Cmnd. Paper No. 1400, he will find it in paragraph 51. It is the same sort of recommendation made by the Monckton Commission and at the Indaba, as I mentioned earlier in my speech.

Mr. Callaghan: I think that what the right hon. Gentleman is referring to is the power of the Constitutional Council to make a report. It can take no action at all. Unfortunately, Africans have memories even longer than that of the right hon. Gentleman, and they remember, as I remember, what has happened previously when bodies of this sort have had power to make reports.
I have no desire to reopen all the wounds in this matter, but the ruination of the Federation was the overruling of the recommendation of the African Affairs Board in 1957. That was the turning point in the history of the Federation. A board similar to this body had the power, and, indeed, was enjoined, to make a report if it believed that legislation was discriminatory. It


made such a report. It was overruled by the Federal Government and it was backed, to their everlasting shame, by the Government of this country. In so doing, they smothered the creature which they themselves had created, because I believe that that was the turning point in the history of the Federation.
The Secretary of State must not be surprised if those who took an interest in Central Africa before he did remember these events. They happened before he came on the scene. These events and incidents will be quoted to him on many occasions if he relies on the argument which he has advanced.
It seems to me that this is a most odd position. It is as though we have two fencers, each of them armed with a foil, each with a mask and each protected with a breastplate, but then we strip one of his mask and of his breastplate, give him a foil a quarter the length of the other's and say, "Right. Now, you two, start to fight. You are equal from now on, but if anybody tries to shorten your foil even more, or take away any more of your armour, you have a right to complain." This will not do. I know that it is too late, but the Secretary of State cannot expect us to assent to proposed legislation which leaves the two parties to the dispute in such an unequal posture.
It can be argued, I suppose, that relations between them will be better than I am outlining. I wish it were true. I am sorry to say that I do not think that it will be. We have no right in this House, when parting with our legislative powers, to rely on undue optimism about the future relationships. I wish it were true that there was a real feeling of partnership in these territories.
If I recite the events of the last year, I hope that hon. Members opposite will not think that I am doing it simply to stir up trouble. I do it simply to paint the background as to whether we are entitled to divest ourselves of these powers. The Vagrancy Act, for example, caused the Chief Justice of Southern Rhodesia to resign on the ground that it was a mean, dirty, savage Act. Do hon. Members opposite really think that in such a situation we are right to hand over our reserved powers?
It is less than a year ago that there were outbreaks of violence. Troops were called out, shots fired, men killed, and others arrested and put in gaol. I say none of this with relish. I repeat it as illustrating the state of affairs out there between the two races. There are friends of mine in gaol who have never been charged. I have raised their case on many occasions. I have raised it with the Prime Minister, but I get no effective answer.
I refer once again to Mr. Nyandoro and Mr. Robert Chikerema, men whom I met in a Christian mission, men who, I am certain, as certain as I can be of any of my fellows, have done nothing to justify unwarranted imprisonment for two years. No charge has ever been brought against them. We correspond with each other regularly. We are being asked as a House of Commons to part with our powers in a situation such as this. I say to the Secretary of State that this side of the House at least is not willing to do so.
It might be asked, if the Africans were ready to agree and seem ready to agree, why we should stand in the way. That would be a powerful argument. It may be that the Secretary of State will tell us that when Mr. Nkomo was here, he seemed to agree to this. If the Africans agreed, I would feel very chary, but I would feel that at least that was an earnest of the prospect of the two races making a successful partnership of it.
Which does the Secretary of State consider the stronger argument, to say that at first the leaders of the Africans seemed to agree—and, as the right hon. Gentleman would say, did agree, although Mr. Nkomo does not wholly accept that line and was able to carry his people with him—or to say that, although Mr. Nkomo agreed, he could not carry his people with him?
Is that the atmosphere, is this the moment, in which to transfer powers when leaders of the African community cannot carry their own people with them? The Secretary of State cannot rely with any validity upon the argument that Mr. Nkomo may have agreed. The simple truth is that whether he did or did not—I do not know—the African people are unwilling to agree.
In the course of a pleasant speech, in which he threw large chunks of undigested White Paper at us, the Under-Secretary said that Mr. Nkomo represented only part of the African people. If he represents only part of them, the Under-Secretary has no more reason for saying that than I have for saying that he represents most of them. Let him make the test. Let him ask the African people whether they want these powers transferred. I will abide by the verdict if Sir Edgar Whitehead and the Government will. I do not know what the answer will be. But I believe that I know, and it is because I believe that I know that the Opposition have tonight put forward their Amendment.
I have heard this argument so often in so many debates. There are found a dozen dissident Africans in a party—I will not call them stooges—who form a splinter group and they are immediately propped up and become the great leaders of the African people. They are trotted out to us regularly. Hon. Members opposite lean up against them. Within six months they have disappeared. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) referred to 32 parties formed in the Federation during the last five years. I say to the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and to the Under-Secretary, "Do not trot out this half dozen splinter members who form a new party and who, for six months, enable you to shelter behind their cloak. They are only disguising the reality from you, and you are disguising it from yourselves".
Another point which will be made by the Secretary of State is that the safeguards which are written in the Constitution under the Declaration of Rights and through the medium of the Constitutional Council will be more effective than the safeguards that exist at present. Indeed, it has been argued, not by the Joint Under-Secretary of State, but by some of his hon. Friends, that those safeguards were ineffective. I do not believe this to be so. I accept that the Secretary of State did not argue that they were ineffective, because he knows that it is not true.
I was reading a book by Professor Tom Franck, of New York University, "Race and Nationalism". He made a substantial study of the position in the Federation and stayed there about

twelve months. He made an interesting comparison between the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the reserved powers which we have here. I may say that he thought that our reserved powers were weaker than those of the Fourteenth Amendment because he said, perhaps a little unkindly, that Secretaries of State did not have to be guided by any scintilla of judicial legislation. They could make their own arbitrary decisions. Of the reserved powers, he said:
This is not to say that the Southern Rhodesian Legislature has always been given its head, or that Section 28 (a) was stillborn. On occasion, there has been prolonged bargaining between the British Government and the Southern Rhodesian Cabinet until a mutually acceptable Bill could be introduced into the Legislature.
I ask the Secretary of State whether that is still true. I have confirmed that it was true in the days when some of my right hon. Friends were Commonwealth Relation Secretaries. Is it true today that there is an informal submission of Bills under Section 28 of the Constitution to the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and that he, by a process of mutual and prolonged bargaining, gets an acceptable Bill, because if that is so it is not fair to argue that these powers have either been ineffective or that they will be more effective if they are transferred to a Government, the possible future character of which I have already analysed?
I suppose that we shall not win this debate. I think that we had better reconcile ourselves to that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I do not think that that is any cause for rejoicing because I believe that many hon. Members opposite are just as troubled about this as we are, and if the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) had been here and heard the speeches of some of his hon. Friends—I hope that he will read them—he will know that this is true.
This is a great gamble taken by the Government. In my view, and that of the Opposition as a whole, it is an unjustifiable gamble. If Southern Rhodesia gets these powers, I say to the Europeans in that territory that the additional powers which they will get will give them very grave additional responsibilities. I trust that for their own sake and for the sake of the Africans they will act swiftly and with


generosity with the powers that the Government are determined that they shall have. They will need to move much faster than they have moved so far. They will need to get rid of many more of the items of social discrimination which disfigure that territory at the present time. They cannot remain an island.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give me a minute or two more, because I started a little late. They cannot remain an island. They must adjust themselves to the swiftly passing tide of events. They have not so far done so. I hope that they will believe that I am saying that sincerely, as sincerely as I can, and with no desire to run them down or their efforts. We want to help them, and get them moving. They will get the powers and they will have great additional responsibilities in carrying them out.
I said just now that I feel that this was unjustified. I have been reading once again the debate of fifty years ago, in 1909, on the South African Bill, and it is most astonishing reading. It was held after an all-night sitting on the Finance Bill. There were 26 Divisions. They did rather better than my right hon. Friend did. Major William Anstruther-Gray was in very great difficulties. Mr. Wedgwood Benn was making a very great nuisance of himself. Major Renton was extremely active.
But what is perhaps more to the point, reading that debate on the South Africa Bill one might have been reading the report of this debate, because what was said in that debate was almost exactly the case that the Government have put here tonight. Mr. Balfour, speaking for the Conservative Party, and Mr. Asquith, speaking for the Liberal Party, both made great speeches; they both said that if the House of Commons rejected the Bill then the Union of South Africa would go down in confusion, and that we should make an end of any prospect of building anything up; they both said that we must have full opportunities for our fellow men in that great community; they both said that the coloured people, also, have a right to sit in Parliament, but, nevertheless, they would take a two-thirds majority of the Legislative Assembly to deprive them of their right effectively to vote.
The parallel is uncanny. I can only hope that the parallel will not be followed to its conclusion, because I should like to say to the Africans that they should accept for the time being the 15 seats and immediately start to press for more.
I conclude by saying why we have moved our Amendment. I will say no in the words of someone who is revered in the Labour Party more than anyone else, and who was one of the few hon. Members in that debate who saw what might come, Keir Hardie. He spoke against the South Africa Bill. He spoke against it because he saw the prospect of what might develop. I would conclude by quoting his words as the reason for the Opposition voting tonight against the proposals which the Government are putting before us:
We have no right, I submit, to compel these peoples who have voluntarily come under our protection to sever themselves from the Crown and put themselves under the protection of a Parliament which has yet to justify its existence and prove to those peoples that they may safely trust themselves to its care and to its guidance."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th August, 1909 Vol. IX, c. 993.]
I can say it in no better words than those.

9.34 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Duncan Sandys): The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) spoke about the high level of the speeches during the debate. If I may say so, I think that his own speech came well up to that standard. I think that we can feel, looking back on the debate—and I hope that nothing that I shall say will alter the general verdict on our proceedings—that this has been a constructive discussion inspired on both sides by sincerity and a genuine desire to apply our minds to an extremely difficult and important problem.
In their Amendment, the Opposition complain that by giving up the British Government's reserved powers we are depriving the Africans of the protection which they now enjoy, and that has been the main subject matter of the whole debate. In statements to the House over a number of years, we have given an undertaking that we would not give up these reserved powers unless we were able to replace them with other equally


effective safeguards. I hope to show the House that the new Constitution more than fully honours that obligation.
Broadly speaking, we have three major reserved powers. Briefly, these are the power to veto discriminatory legislation, the power to veto amendments to the Constitution, and the power to veto changes in the apportionment of land between the races. As the House will see, all these powers are of an entirely negative character and, therefore, the House must not imagine that by the use of these powers we can promote a constructive, forward-looking liberal policy unless the people of Southern Rhodesia wish to do that themselves.
The new safeguards which we are introducing include a Declaration of Rights and a Constitutional Council to examine laws and to advise whether they are in conformity with Declaration of Rights. And finally there is a right of appeal to the Privy Council. In addition, we have provided certain safeguards to ensure that there is no encroachment upon the native reserves.
I hope to show that these safeguards which we are now introducing will not only be equal to but more effective than the powers which they replace. Several hon. Members have criticised the fact that the Constitutional Council itself can only give advice to the Legislative Assembly, which can ignore the advice and go ahead and pass the laws. That is perfectly true, and this matter, of course, was exhaustively discussed at our Constitutional Conference last February. Many of us, including myself, started with the same approach as that of hon. Members who criticised this point today. But I can tell the House that at the end everybody, European and African, and all political parties, were convinced that it would be a wrong thing to set up a Constitutional Council as a rival to the courts of justice. We felt that they must remain the final arbiters on the question of the constitutional validity of laws.
To have two authorities each pronouncing in a judicial capacity on the validity of the law would, we felt, cause confusion and was undesirable. I assure the House that the African representatives were as keen on this point as we were, because they have very great respect for the law and for

the judges and for the impartiality of the whole judicial system. It is, however—and let us be quite clear about this—most unlikely that the Legislative Assembly would go ahead with a law which the Constitutional Council had declared to be inconsistent with the Declaration of Rights, for the simple reason that the Assembly would know that the courts would have to deal with the case, and, quite soon I imagine, in all probability would declare the law to be invalid. As additional safeguards, as hon. Members will see from the White Paper, we have provided that the Constitutional Council may meet the expenses of a test case so as to have the issue decided.
The hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) complained that the new proposals are being submitted to a referendum of the existing electorate which is mainly European. Other hon. Members made the same point. All I would say is that it is not we who asked for the referendum. It arises from the fact that Sir Edgar Whitehead at the last General Election gave a pledge, a perfectly proper pledge, that he would not introduce any change in the franchise without referring the matter to the electors. The referendum, which is, thus, entirely a domestic matter, is being held on his initiative in order to honour that pledge.
It has been said that this largely European electorate is not a suitable body to decide whether the new safeguards are adequate substitutes for the reserved powers which are being given up. I would entirely agree with that. The responsibility for deciding whether or not the new safeguards are adequate rests solely upon this House, this Parliament, and Her Majesty's Government. We have no wish whatsoever to shift responsibility on to the shoulders of the electors of Southern Rhodesia or to shelter behind their referendum. Upon us here rests the responsibility to form an opinion as to whether these new safeguards are adequate or not.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East intervened earlier today to ask how it was reckoned that there could be more than 15 Africans in the new Parliament. I think I might try to clarify that point, because other hon. Members also


raised it. The short explanation—I cannot go into great detail about these calculations—is that the Africans on the upper roll tend to be heavily concentrated in certain areas. It is thought that in a few such constituencies as much as one-third of the upper roll might well be composed of Africans. Assuming that in those constituencies the Africans can score their full 25 per cent. of lover roll votes, then there is no reason why they should not be able to carry the day in those constituencies. I have the names of one or two such constituencies but I do not think it would be proper for me in the House to indulge in electoral speculation.
In a very sympathetic speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) expressed confidence that racial discrimination in Southern Rhodesia is on its way out. I believe that his confidence is justified. I hope that the pace at which this movement is undoubtedly taking place will be accelerated. With all respect to hon. Members opposite, I would suggest that if they wish the process to be speeded up they might sometimes mix with their words of condemnation an occasional word of encouragement to those in Southern Rhodesia—there are many of them—who are sincerely endeavouring to bring about the changes which we all want to see.
A lot has been said about the danger of giving up the reserved powers. The case against giving up these constitutional safeguards was argued with intense feeling in an eloquent speech by the hon. Member for Blackburn and a number of other hon. Members opposite. My answer to them—this is the crux of the whole thing—is quite simple, that those powers have proved in practice to be quite ineffective.

Mr. Dugdale: My right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) has asked me to say that he found those powers invaluable during his period of office, that his negotiations with Lord Malvern were rendered very helpful indeed as a result of them, and that certain things which Lord Malvern had proposed were not carried out simply because those powers existed.

Mr. Sandys: All I can say is that his experience has been very different from

that of other Ministers. In our experience, these powers have been very difficult to exercise.

Mr. Callaghan: This is a most important point, because a lot turns on it. Does the right hon. Gentleman remember Appendix 6 of the Monckton Report, in which Lord Monckton and his fellow Commissioners said quite clearly that it was their understanding that Bills were submitted informally, under Section 28, to the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and that, as a result of discussions, Amendments could and did ensue? I also quoted a very detailed study by a professor of law at New York University, who said much the same sort of thing. What the right hon. Gentleman is saying is that he has found difficulty when, apparently, his predecessors have been able to work it.

Mr. Sandys: I am grateful to the hon. Member for making that point. All I can say is that my experience is not unique. [Laughter.] It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to laugh. I am not trying to score a party point, but it is just as well to point out that, in spite of the existence of these powers, some of the most racially discriminatory legislation in Southern Rhodesia has received the Royal Assent upon the advice of Labour Governments.

Mr. Callaghan: What does that prove?

Mr. Sandys: It proves a great deal if Governments of both parties find it impossible to make effective use of these powers. I suggest that it proves my case completely.
I will go back to the basic Land Apportionment Act, which has come in for so many attacks during the debate and which has been the main Aunt Sally throughout the debate. The basic Land Apportionment Act was approved by a Labour Government in 1930. It may be thought a little unfair to go back so far, but there are more recent examples. Let us look at the decisions of the last Labour Administration. It was the last Labour Government which in 1946 approved the Native Labour Supply Commission Act, the object of which was to recruit native labour and supply it to employers at reasonable charges. Those are the words of the Act. That is one of the Acts which, in spite of the existence of these


powers, the Labour Government felt unable to veto.
Then there is the Native Accommodation and Registration Act, which made it an offence for any native to walk about in an urban area after dark without a pass. That also received the Royal Assent on the advice of the Labour Secretary of State in 1946. I am not standing here to criticise the actions of hon. Members opposite. What I am saying is that that bears out my contention that these powers are not effective.

Mr. Callaghan: What the right hon. Gentleman has shown quite clearly is that the powers, as he says, are blunt. What he has not shown and what I would like him to tell us about in more detail is what were the original proposals under these Acts which were put before the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations at the time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, indeed. Let us take the Land Apportionment Act. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what were the original proposals in that Act which Lord Passfield managed to get amended? We are not saying that these reserved powers have been perfect but that they have been a brake.

Mr. Sandys: I think I have made my point. I think that the examples which I have given are sufficient proof of the futility of the argument that these powers are really effective.

Mr. Callaghan: Monckton was wrong.

Mr. Sandys: In my belief—

Mr. Callaghan: Or the right hon. Gentleman is wrong.

Mr. Sandys: —well, all right. All I would say is that in my view it is much better to provide safeguards—

Mr. Callaghan: But not in Lord Monckton's view.

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Sandys: It is much better to provide safeguards which can be operated by the electors, Parliament and courts of Southern Rhodesia rather than a remote veto exercised by an unseen hand in Whitehall.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East referred to the "bargain" which I am supposed to have made with Sir

Edgar Whitehead. The hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn referred to a "bribe". Others have referred to a quid pro quo, or to the "price that we have had to pay". All I can say is that in the whole discussion—it was not a negotiation; it was a discussion among people who genuinely wanted to arrive at a reasonable conclusion—I found a sincere readiness on the part of the Government of Southern Rhodesia for a widening of the franchise and a beginning of the process of unwinding the restrictions on land apportionment.
The main criticisms which have been made today, apart from the ones to which I have already referred, have been that the new Constitution does not give the Africans sufficient representation. If one goes to Southern Rhodesia and asks what representation ought the Africans to have, one will get a wide variety of very different answers. The differences of opinion on this issue are not confined, I can assure the House, to differences between Africans and Europeans. Among the Africans themselves there is a wide divergence of views.
In deciding this question, account has to be taken of many local factors, including the state of the political, social and economic development of the population, the progress of education, and all the other factors which determine the ability of a people to exercise the vote in a responsible manner. Nor can the question be answered solely by reference to the progress of the African people. I will be frank with the House. The problem is greatly complicated, of course, by the fact that Rhodesia is inhabited by people of different races, all of whom have their homes there and their roots there. All these people belong there and have a right to live there in their own way, whether African, European, Asian or coloured. They are all Rhodesians. I believe that that is generally accepted by the people of all races.
I think it is accepted also that as time goes on the African people will get a bigger and bigger say in the country's affairs until, through the process of Parliamentary democracy, their greater numbers will give them a controlling interest. But we must hope that by then the country will not be politically divided on purely racial lines.
The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) asked why have we not established in Southern Rhodesia the same pattern as in Tanganyika or Nyasaland. The right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) went further and said that since we have no educational qualifications here in Britain, why need we have them in Southern Rhodesia. I do not need to explain to the House that a system of representation which may be suitable for the United Kingdom is not necessarily suitable for Southern Rhodesia. The question is not so much one of principle as of pace, and the pace must be determined in the light of the needs and circumstances of the local situation.
There are, I think, few people with knowledge of conditions in Rhodesia who would seriously believe that it would be in the interests of the African people to introduce the principle of one man, one vote.
Rhodesia is a country with a modern industrial economy, which is more advanced than that of any other country on the African continent, with the exception of South Africa. Suddenly overnight to give political power to over 2 million people—as, I think, the hon. Member for West Bromwich suggests—most of whom up to now have never addressed their minds to any political still less economic problem, would be to jeopardise the whole structure upon which the future prosperity of Rhodesia and all her peoples depends.
While it may be agreed that it is too early to introduce universal suffrage, there are those who think the new Constitution does not go far enough. All I can say is that there are very few either here or in Rhodesia who nine months ago would have dreamt of predicting that so big an advance could come about in so short a time. Political thinking has been changing very rapidly and a number of factors have had their influence. There has been the Monckton Report, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, the Federal Review Conference, and the National Convention—Endaba, as it is called. Incidentally, it is worth

pointing out that the Endaba, which brought together people of all races to discuss their problems as Rhodesians, advocated just about the same distribution in terms of proportion of seats between Africans and Europeans as does the new Constitution now before the House.
Finally, there was the Constitutional Conference in February, 1961, which, as the House knows, produced a wide measure of agreement. It is worth reminding the House once again that the present Legislature contains not one African Member. Last autumn a law was passed enlarging the Assembly to fifty in which it was thought for the first time there would probably be one, and possibly two, African members. Yet, before there was time for the elections to be held for this new Assembly, that was superseded and overtaken by the new proposals which will probably give to Africans over one quarter of the seats in the Assembly.
I can understand the desire of the Africans to have larger representation than the new Constitution provides, but I think most of them would admit that what they are now getting is a great deal more than any of them a few months ago thought possible. I am equally sure that, while Africans may not be fully satisfied, most of them would be very sorry indeed if the new proposals were abandoned. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) made a speech from his heart today. It was much admired in all parts of the House. He made the simple point that it is better to have 15 African seats than to have none. He therefore said he could not bring himself to vote against this new Constitution.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East said Southern Rhodesia is not an island. It is not an island. Southern Rhodesia realises that it is part of Africa and must go forward with the rest of Africa, but it is also part of the European heritage. Europeans and Africans have a part to play together. If they co-operate, there is a great future for their country. I believe that this new Constitution will give them a new impetus and a new inspiration to work together for their common future.

Question put, That those words be there added:—

The House divided: Ayes 219, Noes 313.

Division No. 218.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Hilton, A. V.
Pavitt, Laurence


Ainsley, William
Holman, Percy
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Albu, Austen
Holt, Arthur
Peart, Frederick


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Houghton, Douglas
Pentland, Norman


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Popplewell, Ernest


Awbery, Stan
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Prentice, R. E.


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Hoy, James H.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bence, Cyril
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Probert, Arthur


Benson, Sir George
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Proctor, W. T.


Blyton, William
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Hunter, A. E.
Randall, Harry


Bowles, Frank
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Rankin, John


Boyden, James
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Redhead, E. C.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Reid, William


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Janner, Sir Barnett
Reynolds, G. W.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Rhodes, H.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jeger, George
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Callaghan, James
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Ross, William


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)


Chapman, Donald
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Chetwynd, George
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Short, Edward


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Cronin, John
Kelley, Richard
Skeffington, Arthur


Crosland, Anthony
Kenyon, Clifford
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lawson, George
Small, William


Darling, George
Ledger, Ron
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Snow, Julian


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Sorensen, R. W.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Spriggs, Leslie


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Steele, Thomas


Delargy, Hugh
Lipton, Marcus
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Diamond, John
Loughlin, Charles
Stonehouse, John


Dodds, Norman
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stones, William


Donnelly, Desmond
McCann, John
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Driberg, Tom
MacColl, James
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
McInnes, James
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Swingler, Stephen


Edelman, Maurice
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Sylvester, George


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
McLeavy, Frank
Symonds, J. B.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Mahon, Simon
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Evans, Albert
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Fernyhough, E.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield. E.)
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Finch, Harold
Manuel, A. C.
Thornton, Ernest


Fitch, Alan
Mapp, Charles
Thorpe, Jeremy


Fletcher, Eric
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Timmons, John


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Marsh, Richard
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mason, Roy
Wainwright, Edwin


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Mayhew, Christopher
Warbey, William


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mellish, R. J.
Watkins, Tudor


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)
Mendelson, J. J.
Weitzman, David


Ginsburgh, David
Millan, Bruce
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Gooch, E. G.
Milne, Edward J.
White, Mrs. Eirene


Gourlay, Harry
Mitchison, G. R.
Whitlock, William


Greenwood, Anthony
Monslow, Walter
Wigg, George


Grey, Charles
Moody, A. S.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Morris, John
Wilkins W. A.


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Mort, D. L.
Willey, Frederick


Grimond, J.
Moyle, Arthur
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mulley, Frederick
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Hannan, William
Oliver, G. H.
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Oram, A. E.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Hayman, F. H.
Oswald, Thomas
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Healey, Denis
Owen, Will
Woof, Robert


Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Paget, R. T.
Wyatt, Woodrow


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Parker, John
Mr. J. Taylor and


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Parkin, B. T.
Mr. G. H. R. Rogers.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Errington, Sir Eric
Litchfield, Capt. John


Aitken, W. T.
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Farr, John
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Allason, James
Fell, Anthony
Longbottom, Charles


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian
Fisher, Nigel
Longden, Gilbert


Arbuthnot, John
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Loveys, Walter H.


Atkins, Humphrey
Forrest, George
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby


Balniel, Lord
Foster, John
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn


Barber, Anthony
Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Barlow, Sir John
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
McAdden, Stephen


Barter, John
Freeth, Denzil
MacArthur, Ian


Batsford, Brian
Gammons, Lady
McLaren, Martin


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Gardner, Edward
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Gibson-Watt, David
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute &amp; N. Ayrs.)


Bell, Ronald
Glover, Sir Douglas
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
McMaster, Stanley R.


Berkeley, Humphry
Godber, J. B.
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Goodhart, Philip
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Bidgood, John C.
Goodhew, Victor
Maddan, Martin


Biggs-Davison, John
Gough, Frederick
Maginnis, John E.


Bingham, R. M.
Gower, Raymond
Mariningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Bishop, F. P.
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.
Marlowe, Anthony


Black, Sir Cyril
Green, Alan
Marshall, Douglas


Bossom, Clive
Gresham Cooke, R.
Marten, Neil


Bourne-Arton, A.
Grimston, Sir Robert
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)


Box, Donald
Gurden, Harold
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Boyd-Carpenter. Rt. Hon. John
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mawby, Ray


Braine, Bernard
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Brewis, John
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Mills, Stratton


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Montgomery, Fergus


Brooman-White, R.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Morgan, William


Bryan, Paul
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Morrison, John


Buck, Antony
Hastings, Stephen
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Bullard, Denys
Hay, John
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey


Burden, F. A.
Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
Noble, Michael


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hendry, Forbes
Nugent, Sir Richard


Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Hiley, Joseph
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Cary, Sir Robert
Hirst, Geoffrey
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Channon, H. P. G.
Hobson, John
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hocking, Philip N.
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Holland, Philip
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Partridge, E.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Hopkins, Alan
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Cleaver, Leonard
Hornby, R. P.
Peel, John


Cole, Norman
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Percival, Ian


Cooke, Robert
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Peyton, John


Cooper, A. E.
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hughes-Young, Michael
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Cordle, John
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Pitt, Miss Edith


Corfield, F. V.
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Pott, Percivall


Costain, A. P.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Coulson, J. M.
Iremonger, T. L.
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Prior, J. M. L.


Craddock, Sir Beresford
James, David
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Critchley, Julian
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Crowder, F. P.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Pym, Francis


Cunningham, Knox
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Curran, Charles
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Ramsden, James


Dalkeith, Earl of
Joseph, Sir Keith
Rawlinson, Peter


Dance, James
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Rees, Hugh


Deedes, W. F.
Kirk, Peter
Rees-Davies, W. R.


de Ferranti, Basil
Lagden, Godfrey
Renton, David


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Langford-Holt, J.
Ridsdale, Julian


Doughty, Charles
Leather. E. H. C.
Rippon, Geoffrey


du Cann, Edward
Leavey, J. A.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Duncan, Sir James
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Robinson. Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Duthie, Sir William
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Robson Brown, Sir William


Eden, John
Lilley, F. J. P.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lindsay, Martin
Roots, William


Elliott, R. W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Emery, Peter




Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn









Russell, Ronald
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)
Walker, Peter


Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan
Talbot, John E.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Scott-Hopkins, James
Tapsell, Peter
Wall, Patrick


Seymour, Leslie
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Ward, Dame Irene


Sharpies, Richard
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Shaw, M.
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)
Webster, David


Shepherd, William
Temple, John M.
Whitelaw, William


Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Skeet, T. H. H.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)
Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Smithers, Peter
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Smyth, Brig, Sir John (Norwood)
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter
Wise, A. R.


Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Spearman, Sir Alexander
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Speir, Rupert
Turner, Colin
Woodhouse, C. M.


Stanley, Hon. Richard
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Woodnutt, Mark


Stevens, Geoffrey
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Woollam, John


Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Vane, W. M. F.
Worsley, Marcus


Stodart, J. A.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Vickers, Miss Joan



Storey, Sir Samuel
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Studholme, Sir Henry
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
Sir H. Harrison and Mr. Finlay:


Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Walder, David

Main Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of the proposals for the revision of the Constitution of Southern Rhodesia set out in Command Papers Nos. 1399 and 1400.

Orders of the Day — HIGHWAYS

Special Roads (Classes of Traffic) Order, 1961, dated 15th May, 1961 [copy laid before the House, 18th May], approved.—[Mr. Hay.]

Orders of the Day — HOUSING, MANCHESTER (IMMIGRANTS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

10.12 p.m.

Sir Cyril Osborne: Mr. Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Moss Side (Mr. Watts), who was to have spoken to this Adjournment has, unfortunately, broken his ankle and is now in Guy's Hospital. He sends his apology to the House for his inability to be here, but he has written the speech which he would have liked to have made and has asked me to make his points for him. As all hon. Members will know, my hon. Friend weighs nearly 20 stones and could not possibly make a speech standing on one leg lest he lose the use of the other ankle. Therefore, with the indulgence of the House, I shall try on his behalf to speak on the subject of bad housing and immigration in Manchester.
In the first place, my hon. Friend says, and I think that we can all agree with him, that it cannot be right further to overcrowd already overcrowded slums. That is an obvious and humane consideration. It has nothing to do with colour; whether the extra overcrowding affects whites, browns, pinks or blacks, makes no difference. Further to overcrowd an already overcrowded slum area must be criminal folly, and it is against that background that my hon. Friend makes his appeal to the Minister.
In the second place, my hon. Friend points out that in England and Wales—excluding London, and the great cities of Glasgow and Edinburgh—about 450,000 houses are unfit for human habitation. To replace those slum dwellings will present the building industry with a great problem, and we should not forget that those slum houses are at present occupied by white English people. This extra burden on the building industry is in addition to that presented by the houses that have to be built to meet the natural increase in population. Today the Chancellor issued a serious warning at the Association of British Chambers of Commerce when he said that the nation was obviously living so far beyond its means that he would have to cut back non-productive capital expenditure. This is a very serious announcement, probably the most serious we have had since my right hon. and learned Friend became Chancellor, and he mentioned that he would probably have to look again even at the schools and hospitals schemes.
It seems obvious that the amount of capital and building materials available for the replacement of slums is going to


be cut. From that, it is fair to say that to create still further slums—whether created by people with black, brown, white or pink skins—is stupid folly.
The third point my hon. Friend asks me to make are figures of houses that are unfit for human habitation, for example, 88,000 in Liverpool, 62,000 in Manchester and 57,000 in Birmingham. These are the great centres, London apart, to which the immigrants seem to be attracted. I wish to point out, on my hon. Friend's behalf, that if the immigrants were attracted to areas like Scotland or Southern Ireland, where there is plenty of room for them to live, the housing problem would not be so great and urgent.
The fourth point my hon. Friend asks me to make is that most immigrants come to the United Kingdom because they are poor and are looking for a better way of life with higher standards. It is because they are poor that they are driven, to begin with, at any rate, to the lowest rented districts, the slum areas. They cannot help that because it is all they can afford. It is in just these areas that are already overcrowded that the sanitation is usually lower than in other parts of the country. To send people to these overcrowded areas—normally containing old houses where the sanitation is not the best—seems to me to be an almost criminal act.
The fifth point my hon. Friend wishes me to bring to the attention of the House is the very fact that overcrowding—and I think my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will appreciate this—increases the danger of things like dysentery and tuberculosis—T.B. especially, because people who come from hot climates to this cold and clammy climate have been found to be subject to T.B. and that danger is increased because of the already high incidence of overcrowding.
My hon. Friend therefore urges me to try to argue that no more immigrants should be allowed into this country unless we have proper accommodation and proper sanitation for them, especially in view of the danger to health.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Is his hon. Friend basing the whole of the subject of the housing position in Manchester on the question of immigration and immigrants?

Sir C. Osborne: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I was saying in an unprejudiced manner, he would have heard me clearly say that whatever the colour of one's skin, whether it be white, green, black, pink or brown, to put more people into already overcrowded slums is criminal folly. If hon. Gentlemen opposite are going to deny that, I do not know what they will accept.
I hope I shall not be interrupted further at this point because I am trying to make another hon. Member's speech, and that is difficult enough, and my hon. Friend asks me to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether some pressure could be exercised through the Cabinet so that during the next two years there should be no more immigration into this country, irrespective of colour, until the housing and health problems have been solved. I wonder whether, in this connection, the Parliamentary Secretary has any figures concerning tuberculosis and other diseases in these overcrowded places and how they are affecting immigrants.
The sixth point my hon. Friend asks me to make is that experience shows that immigrants tend to club together when they come here and with their club money they buy old properties. Often they buy houses at excessive prices, but any place is better than no place. What is important, however, is that the old, poor white people who often have lived in the district for generations are, for one reason or another, driven out. I have received hundreds of letters to support what my hon. Friend asks me to say about that. Among the poor, old white people in these districts where immigrants have settled a feeling of injustice is growing. They say, "This is our country, not theirs. Why should we be driven out of our own district where we and our family have lived for generations?".

Mr. W. Griffiths: Mr. W. Griffiths (Manchester, Exchange) rose—

Sir C. Osborne: I have no time.

Mr. W. Griffiths: The hon. Member is speaking about a city about which he does not know a thing.

Sir C. Osborne: I am doing my best to make a speech for my hon. Friend who is in hospital.
There is a good deal of resentment engendered in the areas to which I refer, because white people are driven from what have been their old homes and districts.
My hon. Friend makes this plea to the House. Because of the housing and health problems, he would like there to be for the time being no more immigrants of any kind unless five conditions are fulfilled: that there is an adequate house available, that there is a good health certificate—the two go together and a bad standard in one can aggravate the problem in the other; that there is no criminal record; that an immigrant has a job guaranteed; and that there is money deposited for the return fare if an immigrant proves unsuitable.
My hon. Friend asks me to pay a special tribute—I hope this will please hon. Members opposite—to the excellent work done by coloured Commonwealth people especially in hospitals, on the buses, on the railways and on the roads. He suggests to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that there should be no retrospective action of any kind. He asks that there should be a great housing drive on a national scale. From Accrington to the Potteries, from Liverpool to Leeds, and in the vast Birmingham area, he says, the task is so great that it is beyond the capacity of the local housing authority. He suggests that there ought to be a national policy with national drive behind it because the money and the vast quantities of building materials required could not be found by the local or regional authorities. How far is such a thing possible?
In support of my hon. Friend's plea, I make this point. Housing and immigration are linked; the problem in the one aggravates the problem in the other. That cannot be denied. Two days ago, the Home Secretary, in reply to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell), gave certain comparative figures. In the first five months of last year, the number of immigrants from the West Indies was

14,800. For the same period this year, the number was 26,000. Again, for the same period last year, the number of immigrants from India was 2,000. This year, it was 6,700. In all, taking other countries also, there was an intake of 17,000 in the first five months of last year. The comparative figure this year was 40,000. This is aggravating an already difficult situation in Manchester, Birmingham and London. That is undeniable. In the Smethwick Telephone of Friday, 16th June—I ask hon. Members opposite to note this; it is typical of what is happening all over the country—there was the report that
The wife of an Indian landlord last night denied that there are 34 people living in her husband's ten-roomed house in South Road, Smethwick".
Thirty-four people—what a number for a house of that size! The woman said that she thought the correct figure was only 24, and then she said this—a most extraordinary comment—
I do not think this is too many for a house of this size.
—ten rooms and 34 people.

Mr. W. Griffiths: Who sold the house?

Sir C. Osborne: I am not bothered with that. I am trying to deal with the housing problem. An Englishman, a disabled veteran from the Korean War, was paying 50s. a week rent to the Indian owner for one room.
I should like my hon. Friend to do two things. First, will he push forward as hard as he can with slum clearance and get all the financial assistance and material he possibly can from the central Government in order to help the local authorities in their problem? Secondly, will he put to his right hon. Friend the need to restrain this extra pressure on the slum areas and thereby help at least those people who are already there?

10.25 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Sir Keith Joseph): I am sure that the whole House sends its best wishes to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Moss Side (Mr. Watts), who feels passionately about housing conditions and desperately desires to improve the housing conditions of people who live in slums. My hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) has done him a


service in making a speech on his behalf, and I sympathise with his difficulties.
As my hon. Friend has made plain, the heart of this matter is the provision of more houses. I shall have a few words to say about immigration in relation to housing in Manchester at the end of my reply, but I wish principally to address myself to the problem of increasing the number of houses in this country and the rate of slum clearance, particularly in Manchester. The Government and the local authorities, especially in the big cities, still have a very big housing problem to tackle. There are still many houses which are either downright slums, or are inconvenient, unsuitable, out of date, badly managed, or over-crowded, or a combination of these things.
The Government have set slum clearance as their top housing priority for some years, and they continue to do so. Of course, bad housing is an evil in itself and, as my hon. Friend indicated, it is a source of many other evils as well. The worst housing problem still remains in some of the big cities. In Manchester, in particular, the problem is made more difficult by a shortage of some degree of available sites. Even with high building, about which Manchester is thinking more and more, and even with the redevelopment of slum sites, there will be a need for substantial overspill—an overspill not only for publicly-provided housing, but for private enterprise housing. Manchester has made and is making further arrangements for the overspill of its local authority housing under a number of town development schemes, which are co-ordinated, encouraged and helped by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. W. R. Williams: In fairness to the Manchester authorities, will the Parliamentary Secretary point out for the sake of the record that they have been trying for many years to get the Government to move on the question of getting sites outside Manchester?

Sir K. Joseph: I am coming to that.
In this matter of overspill sites, there is full co-operation between my right hon. Friend and his right hon. Friends, such as the President of the Board of Trade, who is concerned with the provision of work, and those concerned with

transport, agriculture, labour and the other necessary services.
Since the war, Manchester has provided over 24,000 local authority houses inside and outside its boundaries and nearly 5,000 private enterprise dwellings have been built inside the city and thousands more outside the city for Manchester people. Since 1951, the population of Manchester has fallen by 42,000, but because of the smaller size of households today, despite that fall in population, there are only 3,000 fewer households than in 1951; yet this lower population has, inside the city boundaries, 6,000 more dwellings. Thus, the rate of occupancy inside Manchester's city boundaries has fallen since 1951 from 3·5 to 3·2 per dwelling. Not for one moment do I wish to suggest that this does much to diminish the real problem in Manchester of slums and overcrowding, but it is a trend in the right direction.
During the last five years, Manchester has cleared 7,750 slum houses, a figure higher than for any other county borough. Everyone will, however, agree that over the last few years, the pace in Manchester of clearing slum houses has flagged. The task ahead in Manchester is formidable. There are 60,000 slums still to clear. In addition, there is a very large number of old houses, many of which are overcrowded. Manchester has far too few dwellings suitable for the elderly.
The House will, however, be glad to hear the news which I have to announce tonight. My right hon. Friend has recently been in close touch with the Manchester City Council and only a short time ago had a full and useful exchange of views with the council's representatives on problems connected with the city's slum clearance and overspill housing. I am glad to be able to tell the House that the council has decided to raise the rate of slum clearance substantially over the next two to three years. The aim is to achieve 4,000 slum clearances a year and, having got to this level, to maintain it, with, of course, a corresponding increase in new building, until the back of Manchester's slum problem is broken. The council proposes to give slum clearance an absolute priority, but, of course, it will have the benefit of relets of its existing stock of


houses to try to keep pace with other needs.
As I have said, Manchester has a formidable task. To raise the pace of slum clearance to that level and to keep it at that level involves a complex programme and keeping that complex programme moving. Houses have to be represented as unfit, the occupants have to be rehoused, the sites have to be cleared and the rebuilding and redevelopment has to take place. All this has to be phased in which the multitude of other services that go with redevelopment. As, I am sure, the House will agree, there can be no more exciting and satisfying work than the redevelopment of an ancient and historic city like Manchester. If suitable publicity is given, I am sure that the council will be able to attract the vital staff and building resources; but it will need a great effort. With the sites likely to be at its disposal, inside the city and out, Manchester will have enough land to build at this greatly increased rate for several years ahead.
My right hon. Friend agrees, however, that, in view of the difficulties of finding suitable sites and the time required to bring schemes to the point of providing houses, it is not too early now to be thinking of the additional sites that the city will be needing after that. That is why my right hon. Friend has set in train a review of the total housing needs of the Manchester conurbation, so that adequate arrangements for overspill can be made in good time.
It goes without saying that my right hon. Friend welcomes warmly Manchester's resolve. The Government and my right hon. Friend are firmly behind the council. The Government have already pledged themselves that local authorities with housing needs shall not find their programmes interrupted for lack of land.
I must briefly remind the House of some of the other things which the Government have done or are doing to help. As the House will realise, the new Housing Bill provides that a subsidy shall be available for all new houses shown to be needed by local authorities and on a scale according to financial need. The subsidy for overspill housing will go up once the Bill becomes law. The patching grant remains for places where the sheer size of the problem does not permit all

the houses to come down for a considerable time.
The Government have put great stress on the improvement and conversion grants that are available from the taxpayer and the Housing Bill makes some improvement in that direction. More particularly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Louth will recognise, Part II of the Housing Bill gives local authorities much-needed new and strong powers to enable them to stop the overcrowding and the bad management which make domestic life such a misery for so many of the families in our overcrowded cities.
These new powers, sanctioned by considerable penalties and with default powers for the local authorities in reserve, will enable local authorities to put an end to bad management, to require increased amenities in suitable cases, to match the number of households in a dwelling and to limit the number of occupants in any dwelling so as to stop overcrowding in its tracks and prevent it growing in the future.
Therefore, the picture at the moment is one of increased Government aid and of increased local authority powers, and between these two local authorities will be better armed than they have been before. At the same time, it is right to remind the House that in some parts of the country slum clearance is approaching its fulfilment, so that it should be possible for some of the vital key staff to transfer themselves to the areas where slum clearance still remains a tragic and vital problem. The census already shows us that the number of dwellings has grown far larger than has the number of households in the country, though, of course, the gap still remains, particularly in the large cities, a very serious one indeed.
Against this background, it is really disproportionate, as well, I suggest, as undesirable, to single out as a single issue any particular housing difficulties arising from immigration. In Manchester itself the immigrants about whom my hon. Friend was speaking total, I believe—it is an approximate figure—1½ per cent. of the population.

Sir C. Osborne: What is the total number?

Sir K. Joseph: I am informed that it is about 11,000. I hope that my hon.


Friend will not hold me to a precise figure. There are no statistics that control these things.
The wisest course, it seems to my right hon. Friend, is to regard this as a small part of the much larger housing problem, and especially so in Manchester, where the housing problem is, in any case, particularly severe. Authorities which, like Manchester, do not give any special or preferential treatment to immigrants should be able to avoid causing ill-feeling. Once again, this seems to be the case particularly in Manchester, where, I understand, the relations between the immigrants and the population are good. [Interruption.] I hope that no one will criticise my hon. Friend the Member for Moss Side for raising this matter. In constant speeches in the House since he has been a Member he has shown a genuine interest in improving housing conditions.
The important thing is to make a broad frontal attack on bad housing throughout the city with the predominant emphasis on slum clearance and keeping up the rate of building so that the people of Manchester can have decent houses to live in. The new drive of the council holds out the prospect of clearing 30,000 to 40,000 of Manchester's slums within the next ten years or so, and I think that this is good news for all concerned with housing conditions in Manchester and in the country as a whole.

10.38 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: To solve the housing problem we need resolute administration and, in the view of many of us, drastic measures affecting local government finance and the use

and price of land. We have to apply ourselves to those tasks if we are to get the job done. It is mischievous and dangerous to hold out before the people the illusion that they can make a serious contribution to the solution of the housing problem by restricting Commonwealth immigration. Not only is it undesirable in itself, but it tends to turn attention away from the real nature of the housing problem.
To restrict Commonwealth immigration would be a very grave measure, fraught with the most serious consequences to the Commonwealth and to mankind. It would be deplorable if a renowned country like our own were to be panicked into such a measure because we had not the wit or the will to apply ourselves to a solution of our problems. We saw, not many years ago, the great German people dragged into the sordid illusion of trying to blame the Jewish people because the Germans would not apply themselves to a solution of their own economic problems. I trust that we shall not repeat that error in this country.

10.40 p.m.

Mr. Frank Allaun: While I agree with very much of what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, I strongly object to the fact that under the new Housing Bill Manchester's rate of subsidy is to go down from £22 a year to £8 a year, in view of the very conditions of which the hon. Gentleman has been speaking. That is surely wrong and will not help to cure the housing problem of Manchester.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.